Universal Health Care

[editec]

Again, I'm asking about medicare & medicaid specifically, not all government programs. What specifically was intentionally done to the design of these specific programs to make fail - intentionally - as you've argued?

Very simple...they forgot the basic laws of supply and demand.

The increased the demand by paying for the aged and infirmed without in ANY WAY doing anything to the supply side to keep the market forces from dramatically increasing the cost of health care.

If we really wanted our HC system to cost us less, we'd be busting our asses to train and many HC professionals and techies as possible.

OR alternatively we could just let tens of thousands of CUBAN doctors to emmigrate to this nation, too.

Fiel might not have done much right, but one thing he invested heaviliy in is training enough medical personnel to make HC available to everyone.

True they don't have much money to buy the advanced things we do, but their personnel are, I am informed, as good as HC professional here.

 

[pfife]

Very simple...they forgot the basic laws of supply and demand.

The increased the demand by paying for the aged and infirmed without in ANY WAY doing anything to the supply side to keep the market forces from dramatically increasing the cost of health care.

That could very well be the crux of the issue, in fact it probably is - but alas, Cecilie1200 said it was done intentionally - Do you believe this was intentional? The use of the word "forgot" suggests to me that it was not intentional.

Additionally, doesn't this suggest an issue of incompetence, not an issue of intrinsic failure by nature of it being a government program?

 

[Old Rocks]

And that is where you are wrong....

Nobody owes you squat....

Now the government has over-reached it's boundaries for a while now... our taxes should be used for law enforcement, the workings of inner government to create laws and the courts system, military and the national defense, basic infrastructure, etc.... it is not the job of the government to take over your personal responsibilities for you... the government is there to ensure you have the freedoms to provide for yourself, choose what you want for your health care, etc...

Your health is very important to you... your health is not very important to me or anyone else not related to you... your health is not important to the country as a whole.. an infrastructure for the populace as a whole is, national defense is, law enforcement and legal standards are

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...


Not taking care of every responsibility in your life, taking away your personal liberty to have control over your personal well being, and infringing on everyone else's pursuit of happiness and earnings to provide for your personal health

So you say. I say differantly. This is what elections are about. The nations with national health care systems have longer life spans, healthier old age, and much lower infant mortality than we do. Obviously their system is working better. Not only is their system working better, but at half the cost, or less, of our system.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we cannot choose to have a national health care system. Long past time to change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Normally I'd say Bush is an ideologue, but quite frankly his Medicare PartD program was a rather large step toward socialized medicine especially for someone ideologically opposed to socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine that gave a huge gift to the pharmacuetical companies. Like most things under Bush, it was massive welfare for the already wealthy.

 

[pfife]

Socialized medicine that gave a huge gift to the pharmacuetical companies. Like most things under Bush, it was massive welfare for the already wealthy.

You get no objection from me on that assertion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes Chris and every other country has also found it necessary by fair means or foul to limit access to that care in one way or the other. Most often penalized are the elderly.

I see. That is why their average life spans exceed ours? And why their old people are on the average more healthy than ours? Come on, quit blindly repeating lies, and just say that you prefer that those that do not belong to your defined "winners" have no access to health care.

 

[Andrew2382]

That is one of the best articles I've read on the difference between our system and the single payer system.

shocking you would enjoy an article by a left wing nut like sara robinson and not from non partisan institutes that actually list facts and numbers about Canada's healthcare wait times and problems.

You guys are ******* loons

 

[Diuretic]

shocking you would enjoy an article by a left wing nut like sara robinson and not from non partisan institutes that actually list facts and numbers about Canada's healthcare wait times and problems.

You guys are ******* loons

I'll take that as a "****, I don't know how to respond to this, I'm right out of ideas, oh I know, I'll attack people, that'll do it!"

Okay, that was funny. Now, what about this alleged "non-partisan" source? Or sources?

You mean the Fraser Institute? Non-partisan?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fraser_Institute

Not non-partisan at all.

 

[Spare]

EDIT: I ask please, if anyone bothers to respond, I'm really looking for someone to shed light on the first point: Where are the hordes who want to abolish their national health care? That's what I'm really confused about. A lot of people here talk as though it's some sort of huge unknown. Something new and scary, which has never been tried before in the history of man kind. That's not true. There's dozens of examples to choose from. If indeed national health care ***** the doctors, ***** the quality, and ***** the national budget: where's the heat? I really wanna know.]

You, of course, fail to recognize the personal advantage vs. personal disadvantage element of the question. People only complain when the disadvantage is personal ... in other words, that which is bad for the country may actually be good for you, and thus, you won't complain. Anything that is free is good .... for you .... let those who are damaged complain.

This is the crux of the Democratic Party platform. They have created targeted giveaways that have solidified their voting base ... 'what's in it for me?' probably will be the theme of their next national convention.

But, I digress .... your arguments are specious, at best, because they fail to address the key elements ... motive and motivation. As long as I get free (pick one .... food/housing/healthcare/retirement/tax relief), I won't complain... let the people who have to pay ***** about it. As long as the tax is on cigarettes, I'm all in favor of if because, after all, I don't smoke and I get something for nothing. As long as I am the one who will get free tax money under Obama's program, I'll vote for him because I get something for nothing.

 

[Andrew2382]

I'll take that as a "****, I don't know how to respond to this, I'm right out of ideas, oh I know, I'll attack people, that'll do it!"

Okay, that was funny. Now, what about this alleged "non-partisan" source? Or sources?

You mean the Fraser Institute? Non-partisan?

Fraser Institute - SourceWatch

Not non-partisan at all.

Ok, Should I link some Hannity, or Glenn beck things about Universal healthcare..would you take them seriously? Thats what that link from that sara robinson woman is like

As far as my knowledge fraser institute is an independent orgnization

 

[Diuretic]

Ok, Should I link some Hannity, or Glenn beck things about Universal healthcare..would you take them seriously? Thats what that link from that sara robinson woman is like

As far as my knowledge fraser institute is an independent orgnization

Okay you're pulling my leg with Hannity and Beck

Robinson - show me a decent rebuttal of her claims and I'll be interested to read it.

The Fraser Institute has it's own partisan agenda, it isn't independent.

Look, you think I hop into these flame-infested canyons called "universal health care threads" because I want to be some sort of cyber smoke-jumper? It's not much fun I can tell you. Why I hop in is because I don't like seeing countries which have single payer systems or universal health care systems being misrepresented - not accusing you of that, making a general statement about the gathering in of material which suggests that those systems don't work (they do), materials produced by people and organistions with vested interests.

Let me just make one point. In my country - I'm not making my country out to be superior to anyone else in anything (not even cricket ) just making a point - a person will not go bankrupt if they get seriously ill and need treatment. I understand that that can happen in the US. If someone here is seriously ill they will get the treatment they need and without limitation.

They will not have to pay for it because all of us taxpayers pay a levy on our taxable income to maintain our health system so that everyone benefits from it. That's the principle behind it. It's not a bad thing. We haven't gone commo over it, we just like it the way it is. It can be done in the US, I mean you have the most technologically and industrially developed nation on Earth but the vested interests have conned the citizenry into believing that universal health care or single payer systems are ideologically bad. **** ideology Andrew, it's time for some clear-eyed thinking about how the US health system can be made to work for all. It doesn't fuss me personally because every time I visit I have insurance to the eyeballs just in case I need health care. I've spoken to expat Australians living in the US who cannot understand why so many ordinary Americans have this mindset against universal/single payer systems, even to the point of the swallowing the propaganda from the vested interests without casting even a quizzical glance at the claims.

You can do it - yes you can

 

[Chris]

shocking you would enjoy an article by a left wing nut like sara robinson and not from non partisan institutes that actually list facts and numbers about Canada's healthcare wait times and problems.

You guys are ******* loons

Shocking that you wouldn't respond to the facts in the article or the fact that every other Western nation has a single payer system and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and get better results. Why? Because Americans would rather get screwed by for profit healthcare and have to declare bankruptcy and lose their competitive edge worldwide than admit they were wrong about ANYTHING!

 

[Andrew2382]

Okay you're pulling my leg with Hannity and Beck

Robinson - show me a decent rebuttal of her claims and I'll be interested to read it.

The Fraser Institute has it's own partisan agenda, it isn't independent.

Look, you think I hop into these flame-infested canyons called "universal health care threads" because I want to be some sort of cyber smoke-jumper? It's not much fun I can tell you. Why I hop in is because I don't like seeing countries which have single payer systems or universal health care systems being misrepresented - not accusing you of that, making a general statement about the gathering in of material which suggests that those systems don't work (they do), materials produced by people and organistions with vested interests.

Let me just make one point. In my country - I'm not making my country out to be superior to anyone else in anything (not even cricket ) just making a point - a person will not go bankrupt if they get seriously ill and need treatment. I understand that that can happen in the US. If someone here is seriously ill they will get the treatment they need and without limitation.

They will not have to pay for it because all of us taxpayers pay a levy on our taxable income to maintain our health system so that everyone benefits from it. That's the principle behind it. It's not a bad thing. We haven't gone commo over it, we just like it the way it is. It can be done in the US, I mean you have the most technologically and industrially developed nation on Earth but the vested interests have conned the citizenry into believing that universal health care or single payer systems are ideologically bad. **** ideology Andrew, it's time for some clear-eyed thinking about how the US health system can be made to work for all. It doesn't fuss me personally because every time I visit I have insurance to the eyeballs just in case I need health care. I've spoken to expat Australians living in the US who cannot understand why so many ordinary Americans have this mindset against universal/single payer systems, even to the point of the swallowing the propaganda from the vested interests without casting even a quizzical glance at the claims.

You can do it - yes you can

thats a fair point...yet people who have coverage here get possibly some of the best treatment in the world.

No liberal ever wants to mention the fact that over half of the uninsured in this country are illegal immigrants.

I am sure a signle payyor system has its benefithowever it also has its faults and the point is no one wants to look at the negatives.

Our current system has its faults but also has its positives.

Almost every state has a system for people to get quality care...I live in Florida and children can be covered under kid care till 18 years of age if the parents dont make enough money or their employers don't offer coverage.

There is medicare and medicaid

I don't want my money I work for to pay for everyone elses healthcare to be quite honest, I pay for my own and you pay for yours.

I guess this makes me a greedy conservative right wing asshole to believe that people should get what they work for.

Single payor is nice because everyone has insurance but the fact remains is the government makes the decision on what kind of treatment you should get...just like I listed in my post before there are many cases people have died because the giverment doesn't approve medication that is their to "extend" life.

I don't want us to go down that road. Healthcare needs to be reworked but not in a signle payor form, the government needs to make it more appealing to employers to offer it, and people need to stop suing for every single thing that happens.

 

[Andrew2382]

Shocking that you wouldn't respond to the facts in the article or the fact that every other Western nation has a single payer system and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare and get better results. Why? Because Americans would rather get screwed by for profit healthcare and have to declare bankruptcy and lose their competitive edge worldwide than admit they were wrong about ANYTHING!

Get better results? Did you read my article you moron...tell you what, lets go to a single payor system, then get a headache, in the 5-7 months it takes you to see a doctor, get a catscan, see the doctor again for the results...you might be dead.

Cause that happens to people in that kind of system, examples listed in my post.

We complain about waiting 30 minutes at the doctors office, imagine 9 mweeks to get an MRI.

I am not rich, and I have always had healthcare insurance...my employers have always offered it...also guess what if I had to pay for it...IT WOULDNT BE EXPENSIVE.

Wanna know why? Cause I take care of myself and don't weigh 450 pounds.
I have gotten quotes for personal policies and they came out to around 120 bucks a month for the best policy with a 500 dollar deductible.

Maybe if this country stopped going to Burger king and had some grilled chicken instead premiums wouldn't be so high

 

[Bern80]

Or somewhere in the constitution that says government is not able to do it.

The status of healthcare, right or not a right, isn't germane to the argument. If government chooses to do it then, unless it's specifically prohibited, government can go right ahead and organise it.

Please tell me you're a hair smarter than that Di. You really don't see a problem with interpreting a document such that government can do anything as long as a written document doesb't say the CAN'T?

 

[Bern80]

Bullshit.

When Canadians were asked in a poll to vote for the greatest Canadian in history, they voted for the man who developed their healthcare system. A single payer system is cheaper because you don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. Every other Western democracy uses a single payer system because it is better and more fair. Only Americans are too stupid to see that our system is expensive, bloated, and unfair.

cheap does not equal quality or easy access as has shown to be the case. Minor detail

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, enough of the stupidity about the very long waits, and other silly ignorant lies concerning many other health systems around the world. Here is a site with a video about the health systems in Great Britian, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and Taiwan. How they work, who pays, what the results are. None of the foolish lies of the right wingnuts;
FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

 

[Andrew2382]

From your own sight


United Kingdom- What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

Japan- What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home

Lets get serious...Japanese people take care of themselves...they arent obese. If Americans had their diet our premiums would be minimal.


Germany
What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.

So what you're saying is people who have private care get treatment faster then those under the goverment plan...interesting.

Switzerland

Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens...IS THAT CHEAP?

Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year

What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.


Thanks for the link...I now know I never want to live in Switzerland

 

[Chris]

OK, enough of the stupidity about the very long waits, and other silly ignorant lies concerning many other health systems around the world. Here is a site with a video about the health systems in Great Britian, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and Taiwan. How they work, who pays, what the results are. None of the foolish lies of the right wingnuts;
FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

Don't bother them with the facts. The rest of the world gets it, but we are falling further behind. The lack of a single payer healthcare system is one of the reasons U.S. companies are becoming less and less competitive.

 

[Andrew2382]

yes, lets have the government run our healthcare...everything they have touched has gone broke....from social security to the ******* postal office....but you want them in charge of healthcare...you are an idiot