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.
What "expensive bureaucracy"? There is no UHC in America, and therefore no UHC bureaucracy.
Why should a family beg and rely on charity? What if that charity can't give them enough money?
The effort to help would be to enact UHC.
Slow with what? Come up "short" how?
Yes, I agree. Let's have everyone pitch in to help anyone else in need. Do you like the sound of that?
Of course I agree we should pitch in, but I want to decide how much I can afford for another person's care. And forced "chipping in" just ain't the same thing. And you know that!
You are attempting to create the entire argument based on pity and guilt.
All I see is that you have an amazing grasp of an obvious problem, but no solution. Do you believe you are the first person to figure out there was a problem? One of the few that truly can care for another person? Of course not, because that would be a delusional thought.
The system is broken and the proposed legislation doesn't fix it and actually keeps paying the very people who broke it. Don't you see that?
Also, take a look at how the Gov'ment handles Medicare and ask yourself whether you think you want them in charge of more?
They've bankrupted it, and are relying on this "Do you want people to die?" question to keep people in agreement. I mean, no one wants to be seen as wanting someone to die.
But, we all do just that...we all die.
I would like some fact and accountability in the plans and the assurance in writing, not words, that fraud and misspending will not continue to occur.
At this point, I don't see that.
I see a huge fat piece of legislation that rewrites Medicare, Social Security, the US Tax code, and also allows the Gov'ment my personal health history. A privacy that I want to maintain just in case someone decides that I'd be better off dead.
Don't think that would happen? Thinking I'm paranoid?
A problem arises when the PAYER has a vested interest in DENYING claims for $$$PROFIT$$$
The exact same problem arises when the payer (government) has a vested interest is denying claims in an attempt to be cost effective or 'save' money. Even under UHC there isn't an unlimited supply of money....you can bet folks will get fewer options than they do now.
That's going on now with government programs...see earlier post on mammograms and colonoscopies.
Of course I agree we should pitch in, but I want to decide how much I can afford for another person's care. And forced "chipping in" just ain't the same thing. And you know that!
You're also "forced" to chip in for police, fire departments, water, sewer, electrical, gas, public roads (both local and interstate), etc.
The amount you can contribute is determined by your income. Do you also dislike paying for these things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
You are attempting to create the entire argument based on pity and guilt.
Not pity or guilt, but society. You pay for the aforementioned public services with part of your money -- it's the cost you pay for the benefit of living in a society as opposed to some hand-built shack in the woods. Health care should be included in those societal benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
All I see is that you have an amazing grasp of an obvious problem, but no solution.
Sure I do! The solution is a single-payer healthcare system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
The system is broken and the proposed legislation doesn't fix it and actually keeps paying the very people who broke it. Don't you see that?
The current legislation is pure crap. I agree with you completely on this!
Please understand that I am not advocating the current legislation, but instead calling for a plan that works in many other countries throughout the world: UHC. This kind of system is implemented in every single industrialized nation besides the USA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
Also, take a look at how the Gov'ment handles Medicare and ask yourself whether you think you want them in charge of more?
People on Medicare are actually very satisfied! I don't see anyone calling to abolish it.
Medicare is a single-payer system -- if we could extend the benefits to everyone it would be a great improvement over the current system of private health insurance corporations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
They've bankrupted it
Who are "they"? By what mechanism was it bankrupted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
and are relying on this "Do you want people to die?" question to keep people in agreement.
Who asked this question? Please cite sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
I see a huge fat piece of legislation that rewrites Medicare, Social Security, the US Tax code, and also allows the Gov'ment my personal health history.
Nothing wrong with rewriting those things. Also, it does not allow the government access to your health history, onlyyour doctor.
Right now, huge numbers of employees your health insurance corporation has access to all your health history, right down to the bean counters and "rescission" (health care denial) experts! Is this somehow better? Health insurance corporations literally make money from denying you care. The more they deny, the richer they get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
Don't think that would happen? Thinking I'm paranoid?
Yes, I do think you're paranoid. That article compares health care reform to directly to Hitler, the Third Reich, and "mercy killings".
It's ridiculous and I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad that people actually buy into that type of thinking.
I really don't understand the trust being placed with the gov'ment to do the right thing for our care.
Does anybody follow what our own gov'ment did and still do with our soldiers under the reasoning that they are "theirs" to test?
Ask some vets about their problems created by testing done by the military for "the common good".
NO THANK YOU!!
There should be a clear separation between my "person" and my guv'ment, because if there isn't, there's a chance that the gov'ment and my neighbors paying into the same system will feel they have a say in what I should and should not sacrifice for the "greater good".
I want to retain the right to choose. Reform? YES Government run Healthcare? Oh, NO WAY!
The exact same problem arises when the payer (government) has a vested interest is denying claims in an attempt to be cost effective or 'save' money.
Budgeting is not the same as a direct profit motive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank
Even under UHC there isn't an unlimited supply of money
What does this have to do with the money supply?
The prices (which should actually be called "payments to doctors" since the individual does not pay for procedures) are not set by a profit-driven insurance corporation.
That's the whole point of single-payer: everyone's money is pooled into a health care fund. Costs for procedures are taken out of that fund and paid directly to the doctors that performed them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank
you can bet folks will get fewer options than they do now.
I'm not a betting man. Can you back up your claim with facts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank
That's going on now with government programs...see earlier post on mammograms and colonoscopies.
Mammograms and colonoscopies are not "government programs"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
I really don't understand the trust being placed with the gov'ment to do the right thing for our care.
Who do you trust? Profit-driven corporations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
Does anybody follow what our own gov'ment did and still do with our soldiers under the reasoning that they are "theirs" to test?
No, please enlighten us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
Ask some vets about their problems created by testing done by the military for "the common good"
I asked, and they didn't know what I was referring to. Can you explain what you mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
There should be a clear separation between my "person" and my guv'ment
There is: you are a citizen, and the government is a selected group of decision-making citizens that is chosen by the citizens as a whole. What are you trying to say here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinstyler
there's a chance that the gov'ment and my neighbors paying into the same system will feel they have a say in what I should and should not sacrifice for the "greater good"
This happens now, and has been happening for as long as this country has existed.
Your neighbors (by that I mean the nation as a whole) decided to build public infrastructure and fund public services for the greater good. This includes police, fire department, roads, highways, bridges, municipal utilities, etc. They decided that you (and everyone else) will sacrifice some money for the maintenance of these services in exchange for being able to use them.
This is how society functions, in a nutshell.
Budgeting is not the same as a direct profit motive.
The end result is the same.
Quote:
What does this have to do with the money supply?
The prices (which should actually be called "payments to doctors" since the individual does not pay for procedures) are not set by a profit-driven insurance corporation.
That's the whole point of single-payer: everyone's money is pooled into a health care fund. Costs for procedures are taken out of that fund and paid directly to the doctors that performed them.
So you think enough money will be collected to pay for every procedure and test for everyone? That's what money has to do with it...unless you want to pay the doctors with chickens.
Last edited by CaseyB; 02-13-2010 at 05:41 AM..
Reason: rude
You're also "forced" to chip in for police, fire departments, water, sewer, electrical, gas, public roads (both local and interstate), etc.
The amount you can contribute is determined by your income. Do you also dislike paying for these things?
That is infrastructure. Please try to stick to the point. I can tell you believe this to be a clever remark, but it's very fouled logic. Stick to the topic of Healthcare. You are simply arguing that because I gave an inch, I should give a yard. That makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
Not pity or guilt, but society. You pay for the aforementioned public services with part of your money -- it's the cost you pay for the benefit of living in a society as opposed to some hand-built shack in the woods. Health care should be included in those societal benefits.
The aforementioned items are impersonal infrastructure. They don't have the same "built in" problems that healthcare does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
Sure I do! The solution is a single-payer healthcare system.
Great concept...now, where's the solution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
The current legislation is pure crap. I agree with you completely on this!
Please understand that I am not advocating the current legislation, but instead calling for a plan that works in many other countries throughout the world: UHC. This kind of system is implemented in every single industrialized nation besides the USA.
So, we should do it because other nations do it?
Which of these Nations would have covered this and other experimental treatment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
People on Medicare are actually very satisfied! I don't see anyone calling to abolish it.
Medicare is a single-payer system -- if we could extend the benefits to everyone it would be a great improvement over the current system of private health insurance corporations.
Is that so?
Why don't you call my friend whose 80 year old father is dying and can't get his experimental medicine to extend his life? See what she has to say about "fair". Medicare was originally intended to be a "just the basics" service. You agree we should all go to "just the basics?" Oh...I mean, unless you're really really poor, then you can have better service than other people...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
Who are "they"? By what mechanism was it bankrupted?
The government. And if you don't know they are not running a solvent program, enjoy that thought. If you want proof of a failing system, google is your friend.
Now, Medicare as a theory works, but in practice it certainly does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
Who asked this question? Please cite sources.
Just search in the forums on Healthcare debate. Take your pick. Your version of "Do you want someone to die?" was in one of your earlier posts. It's a common method of arguing why we should pass this poorly written in impotent piece of legislation rather than taking our time and going back to the drawing board. Ready FIRE, oh yea...AIM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
Nothing wrong with rewriting those things. Also, it does not allow the government access to your health history, onlyyour doctor.
Right now, huge numbers of employees your health insurance corporation has access to all your health history, right down to the bean counters and "rescission" (health care denial) experts! Is this somehow better? Health insurance corporations literally make money from denying you care. The more they deny, the richer they get.
You need to check on this. If the guv'ment can audit the process, they have access.
But hey, let me not add any common sense or logic to obstruct your trust in the guv'ment. I am aware of who already has my information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah yes of course
Yes, I do think you're paranoid. That article compares health care reform to directly to Hitler, the Third Reich, and "mercy killings".
It's ridiculous and I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad that people actually buy into that type of thinking.
I had a feeling you wouldn't understand what was in that article.... Power is a disease and the more power we give our gov, the more they need to keep things as they need to be.
The reason I buy into this type of thinking is that genocide happens, and it is happening now and will always happen.
Our founding fathers knew the effects of the Power Disease. This is why they wanted the Government BY the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE. The Federal Government was intentionally drawn up to be small with limited powers. There was a reason and there still is now. Government run programs is NOT PROGRESS, it's a shift in the reverse.
You want to dive head first into the bliss of a society that is no longer free. Go ahead and do it. I won't. I know my history and the lessons history has to teach us. There is a reason America is great. And when we became Great, the typical people started figuring out how to take that away. I'm not paranoid to think it's intentional. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. He really did.
They all do.
History, Philosophy, Accountability and Charity... I like this combination better.
Public schools and college, some arts venues, most football and baseball stadiums, many museums, most libraries and many other facilities and services are tax supported and are not "ifrastructure".
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.
