10 Facts About American Health Care: What do YOU think?

[El_Machinae]

Well, whether the healthcare is paid through taxes (thus disadvantaging people) or through people's paycheques (thus disadvantaging people), it's going to get paid, because people pay for healthcare.

So the real question is what gives the most bang for the buck.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Moderator Action: Foul Language
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[BasketCase]

It's pretty good, yes. But that's not the question. It's a matter of does the quality match the price and how accessible is that quality?

Nope. Assessing the health care industry is much larger than that. When I see people focus on only one or two aspects of an issue (as you seem to be doing......) I start wondering if it's because they have an agenda they're not telling me about.

If you want universal health care, just SAY SO. Geez.

But be clear on something. If you spend more money to get health care for everybody, that means you're spending less money somewhere else--such as on stopping climate change. Spend less money on the military, and the poor are more likely to get conquered by Canada or Mexico. The end point being that the poor are pretty much screwed no matter what you do. The best you can do is give them the tools to pull themselves out of the gutter so they don't have to rely on government programs--because sometimes those programs are being run by somebody like George Bush.

(I have always been a forty-acres-and-a-mule kind of guy)

 

[LucyDuke]

Nope. Assessing the health care industry is much larger than that. When I see people focus on only one or two aspects of an issue (as you seem to be doing......) I start wondering if it's because they have an agenda they're not telling me about.

If you want universal health care, just SAY SO. Geez.

But be clear on something. If you spend more money to get health care for everybody, that means you're spending less money somewhere else--such as on stopping climate change. Spend less money on the military, and the poor are more likely to get conquered by Canada or Mexico. The end point being that the poor are pretty much screwed no matter what you do. The best you can do is give them the tools to pull themselves out of the gutter so they don't have to rely on government programs--because sometimes those programs are being run by somebody like George Bush.

(I have always been a forty-acres-and-a-mule kind of guy)

I'll say so. I do. I think it's at least as, if not more important than education, and we do that for everyone. I also think systems like Canada's or France's are objectively more effective than America's.

And come on, the poor are more likely to get conquered by Mexico? But not the rich people. Dude, you know how silly you're being.

 

[Earthling]

If you want universal health care, just SAY SO. Geez.

(I have always been a forty-acres-and-a-mule kind of guy)

I also want universal health care.
And I assume those 40 acres nowadays should come from Iraq?

Cutlass posted some pretty clear-cut, bottom-line statistics that sum up my view. But there's one thing I occasionally hear and is a bit more of a complicated issue, even if we were to go for universal healthcare. Along the lines of, I believe it was something like "~20% of healthcare spending is on <1% of the populace" - isn't it also true in the US that a huge proportion of spending is on people about to die? I'm curious if anyone with more knowledge/experience/statistics knows about causes behind this - I've seen a lot of hearsay but this never seems to be brought up in major reports. (litigation and insurance? Do hospitals overcharge old people/Medicare to cover their bills otherwise? Obviously medical care will cost more anyway for the really ill/elderly but the above statistic for instance is pretty crazy)

 

[Kerozine]

Spend less money on the military, and the poor are more likely to get conquered by Canada or Mexico.

But Canada has no military and Mexico's can barely handle petty drug dealers.

 

[BasketCase]

I'll say so. I do. I think it's at least as, if not more important than education, and we do that for everyone.

Yeah, well, I think it's education that's more important than universal health care, because if you have an education, you can take care of the rest yourself.

And come on, the poor are more likely to get conquered by Mexico? But not the rich people. Dude, you know how silly you're being.

I was dead serious. Naturally, if you don't understand it, you're gonna think it's silly. Think it through. When a conquering army comes along, who has the more resources to run away and make a home somewhere else (say, a boat with a big stash of food aboard)? And failing all else, who is more likely to be able to bribe the conquering forces?

The rich.

 

[BasketCase]

I also want universal health care.
And I assume those 40 acres nowadays should come from Iraq?

That's the thing--do you see an American flag flying over any of that land currently labelled "Iraq" on the map? Did any part of Iraq get turned into State #51?

Nope.

 

[Arwon]

For the record, most of the Australians who think the health system is broken probably agree that a big part of the solution is to move it to being an entirely federal responsibility.

 

[PiMan]

I concur good sir.

 

[Cutlass]

Nope. Assessing the health care industry is much larger than that. When I see people focus on only one or two aspects of an issue (as you seem to be doing......) I start wondering if it's because they have an agenda they're not telling me about.

If you want universal health care, just SAY SO. Geez.

But be clear on something. If you spend more money to get health care for everybody, that means you're spending less money somewhere else--such as on stopping climate change. Spend less money on the military, and the poor are more likely to get conquered by Canada or Mexico. The end point being that the poor are pretty much screwed no matter what you do. The best you can do is give them the tools to pull themselves out of the gutter so they don't have to rely on government programs--because sometimes those programs are being run by somebody like George Bush.

(I have always been a forty-acres-and-a-mule kind of guy)

See, the bolded part is just not true. Because the current system is the most costly in the world. And not just by a little bit. It is most costly to over twice as much in some cases. Fix that, and you can provide health care for everyone and have enough money left over to double the defense budget and the average American will still have more money left in their pockets than they do now.

 

[Mise]

My cockring got infected once, if I was in America, i would have been impotent, but because i live in britain, they were able to give me a new one.

 

[Abaddon]

Futher more, its even bigger than the one i had!

 

[LucyDuke]

Yeah, well, I think it's education that's more important than universal health care, because if you have an education, you can take care of the rest yourself.

I was dead serious. Naturally, if you don't understand it, you're gonna think it's silly. Think it through. When a conquering army comes along, who has the more resources to run away and make a home somewhere else (say, a boat with a big stash of food aboard)? And failing all else, who is more likely to be able to bribe the conquering forces?

The rich.

What? You and I disagree?

Education and health are both very important.

You've only made your poor-conquered-by-Mexico thing sound sillier by explaining it.