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 08-11-2009, 07:23 AM
 
4,922 posts, read 7,102,759 times
Reputation: 5458

Advertisements

I believe that everyone has the right to healthcare but not at the same level. If you can pay for it then you should be able to buy the best healthcare available. If you are insured you deserve all that your insurance plan provides. If you have nothing you should still be able to get BASIC healthcare such as free clinics through medical and dental schools paid for by the government. ( I divided healthcare into three tiers but there could be more levels of treatment).

One of the most important item of any broad healthcare plan is who is going to administer the care. We are already short on general or family practice doctors. (In my area it is almost impossible to find an MD if you are on Medicare). If overnight everyone has healthcare there will not be enough doctors to go around. Waiting a week or two for an appointment will turn into months and maybe years. Then there is the question of how much the plan will pay the existing MD's. Lowering the payment will only drive more doctors into specialties and deter young people from entering the field.

I think universal health care is a wonderful thing to have. I would like to see needy children get needed medical and dental care. I would like to see seniors who have to choose between food and medicine get their meds at a reasonable cost, etc.

My message for the president; "If you build it they will come," but you must build it first. Sitting in the oval office holding you breath screaming "I want my healthcare, I want my healthcare," will not work.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2009, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,408 posts, read 17,764,467 times
Reputation: 8861
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969 View Post
This gist I get from your long post is that you think it is entirely feasible that people have a right to get through a major medical problem with not only their health restored, but their financial statement unscathed as well.

I don't think the government should kick in so much as one dime towards my (or your) health care costs until I am completely out of money. Maybe not even then. Charity should be the province of churches.

After all, if I am not willing to spend my last dime to save my life, why should I ask someone else to pay for it?

It's like the old Jack Benny routine:
Robber: Your money or your life!
Jack: Long pause.......
Robber: What's it going to be? Your money or your life??
Jack: I'm thinking it over!
If your house were burning the fire department should then say 'That person has money, they can afford to build another. Let the house burn to the ground'.

As is happening with the bankrupt once middle class - the insurance companies should say 'he still has some savings, so let's not help him until his bank account is empty'.

Church charity should be for those falling between the cracks, not for the massive number of innocent people now suffering because of the greed of some politicians and financial institutions.

Escalating health care costs have been a problem for a long time and the free market has not been able to stop it. When the backbone of our economy is being hit hard - the MIDDLE CLASS - yeah, I am my brother's keeper.

I certainly think we should extend care to the poor but you seem to have a hard time identifying with the reality that some people are facing. There have been suicides due to this problem. This is not some abstract idealistic topic that we should be debating back and forth.

You should never have to suffer so, but for some people that is the only way they learn.
It's like the bully in the schoolyard - he often does not see the error of his ways until he gets back what he puts out.

God can move people even though they are not church goers. Most of the present sufferers are not lazy or alcoholics or druggies. Many are people just like you. Many would have said the same thing you are saying now, in your place but they have learned and feel that we really DO have a responsibility for each other. We are not on the planet alone. Our wealth and comfort is due to the cooperation of many people in a complex system.

Last edited by goldengrain; 08-11-2009 at 10:00 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2009, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Northern California
481 posts, read 729,249 times
Reputation: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDolphin View Post
I guess Medicare is for the elders while we need to expand that coverage for kids, young adults, pregnant women and such...different needs require different coverage.

But, yes, I'm hoping they use Medicare as a partial business model. I have hope as there's already been one successful govt.-run universal health care plan--and I'm sure they're studying the different business models as implemented in other countries successfully.

The fear and rumor-generation that's been set in motion by the opposition is incredible--and would be laughable if it wasn't so well-financed and widely desseminated. But I hope the American people can see through the smoke and mirrors and lies.

Guess the insurance companies and Big Pharma are running scared...the rumor mill, media articles, blogs, other media coverage and town hall actions are obviously very, very well-capitalized.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2009, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
523 posts, read 1,732,330 times
Reputation: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertsun41 View Post
Well of course you are right. Everyone knows that our health care is the most despicable useless system run by a bunch of clowns. I despise some minimum wage clerk 3000 miles away deciding what medical treatment I should or should not get.

Only problem is anything this govt touches turns to garbage. This govt is the must useless waste of human flesh that walks and breaths. They are just big fat bureaucrats with no interest in we the peasants. Yet people support them by voting for them.

I want their health care plan. Every American should have the same plan as the bureaucrats.
If you hate our government then move to mexico.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2009, 01:37 PM
 
814 posts, read 1,901,129 times
Reputation: 399
Quote:
If your house were burning the fire department should then say 'That person has money, they can afford to build another. Let the house burn to the ground'.
This is a very poor, inappropriate analogy.

But let me ask this: Does the homeowner have any responsibility to fight the fire with his own resources before the fire department gets there?

Simply because health care costs have outpaced one's personal income is not a reason to take that option away from those who can afford it.

Again, your money or your life? Make a choice.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2009, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
28,707 posts, read 16,740,321 times
Reputation: 8989
Quote:
Originally Posted by donalduckmoore View Post
Is it good or bad is open for others to debate. Having lived in Hong Kong for many years, and I can tell that the healthcare reform that this administration is proposing is offering an option for many people to choose in terms of medical care. In Hong Kong and other commonwealth countries or regions, such as England and Canada, universal health care has been existed for many years. One has to emphasize that this is another option to choose from, but not the only option in health care. Obviously, the good things about this plan are that you do not need to pay a monthly premium like medical insurance and the overall cost of medical treatment is a lot cheaper. The bad thing is one may have to wait a long line for service especially for chronic illnesses that may not have an immediate health impact. If one has money but not patience, he/she can still choose the more expensive insurance option, but for those who are young and healthy, and those who are low- to middle-income families, universal health care is a bless. I fully support the health care reform. What is your thought.
I believe the problem with a national public health care system is that instead of being run by doctors and health care professional, it will be run by politicians, whose main motivation in life is to get reelected.

These same politicians, senators and congressmen, write the bills and amendments to them and the president signs them. Years later when the program runs into trouble, no one remembers which members of the congress or senate wrote which bill, or added which amendment, the people just point to the president who signed it and the party he belongs to as the guilty ones, and they never hold the senate and congress accountable. so the same senators and congressmen go about writing the fixes, which break the thing even more, and the president gets the blame.

Public health care is also funded with taxpayer money, and too many politicians see this as an endless supply of money. So when a public program needs more money, it gets more money. when was the last time you saw a sincere interest in preventing the fraud and waste in a government program? You don't, the program gets expanded and gets even more money from taxpayers.

I don't see how a public system of universal health care will be any different. Can someone convince me otherwise?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2009, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
28,707 posts, read 16,740,321 times
Reputation: 8989
Quote:
Originally Posted by donalduckmoore View Post
No it is not free, you have to pay your bit for the service, but it is just not as much. It is a price control idea, not freebies. It has been working in so many advanced countries for so long, I cannot imagine why it will not be working in this country.
do you mean a co-pay system, and if so how much would it be?


Shouldn't we also study why health care costs in America are so high, and bring them under control before we just ask taxpayers to absorb them in a national public system?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2009, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
28,707 posts, read 16,740,321 times
Reputation: 8989
Quote:
Originally Posted by donalduckmoore View Post
Aren't England and Canada considered advanced countries? If you need to find the definition of "Advanced countries," pls look up some literatures.

The health care cost in this country is so overly inflated without a known reason. Inflation in price is usually due to two basic principals, supply and demand or greed. While other countries, such as Canada, are able to negotiate with drug companies to reduce the cost of drug significantly meaning that there are lots of room for drug price to move down. If price control won't work, what works?!

In addition to that, part of the reasons the health care cost in our country is so much inflated is partly because of complicated levels of administration. We should cut more cost.

I totally agree with you, Cali, all the people should have a choice to pick the right plan for ourselves. At least this administration has the gut to propose the idea of the reform although the details have to be worked out.
Doesn't America offer some health care relief for Canada? I would say the answer is yes, Canada's public health care system does get relief in the form of some of its citizens go south for exams, treatments and operations.

I know that the drug companies are forced to sell drugs cheaper in Canada, so do you think those same drug companies pass on their loss in profits to Americans, in the form of higher drug prices?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2009, 02:27 PM
 
1,644 posts, read 4,298,392 times
Reputation: 443
One of the most important item of any broad healthcare plan is who is going to administer the care. We are already short on general or family practice doctors. (In my area it is almost impossible to find an MD if you are on Medicare). If overnight everyone has healthcare there will not be enough doctors to go around. Waiting a week or two for an appointment will turn into months and maybe years. Then there is the question of how much the plan will pay the existing MD's. Lowering the payment will only drive more doctors into specialties and deter young people from entering the field.


Don't forget the nurses.If you have a two tier system-one public and one private and the public pays the nurses less than the private (maybe the same as police and teachers) and the private pays the current rates, then who is going to choose to work for the the public system?
Could end up with a lack of nurse willing to work for those wages and chosing agencies.The public system will then have to pay agency rates to get nurses (expensive) so there could be even lower staffing ratios.

Here in the UK the salaries in private v NHS hospitals are about the same so they don't drain the NHS of nurses-hence they continue to pay low salaries by comparison.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2009, 02:35 PM
 
1,644 posts, read 4,298,392 times
Reputation: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
do you mean a co-pay system, and if so how much would it be?


Shouldn't we also study why health care costs in America are so high, and bring them under control before we just ask taxpayers to absorb them in a national public system?
I don't want to get accused of hijacking the thread, but I believe you are asking how much people with UHC pay for it?

In the UK those who work pay 5.5% of their earnings, plus employer pays an equal amount.
We pay a fixed amount for prescriptions-around $10 per item.They only precribe 1 months supply at a time.
We pay up to around $350 for a major dental treatment-but if you need 2 crowns you pay that twice.Lowest fee is around $28 for a check up.
Eye tests are free but we pay for specatacles-whatever lenses you need and however much the frames are.
Children don't pay for anything.
Over 60s get free scripts, but still pay for specs and dental-same rate.
If you don't work you don't pay anything.
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
Similar Threads

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