Nationalized Healthcare? Not In My Back Yard!

[Whomp]

Don't get trollish Pokurcz. If you haven't noticed Igloo and I have both posted in this thread.

The answers to the complex health care problems in the US will likely come from two sources with federal support. The business community and the states. The federal government is not capable of running a program of this magnitude.

We already have a federally run program, medicare/medicaid is already using more than it receives and will need to see increased funding (stat). The boomers are quickly approaching access medicare and the fact remains they'll need 4x the health care than their past.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Mmmh. So what you're saying is that the current American system is more wasteful of its resources?

- The current US healthcare system is the most expensive in the world (it's way too expensive for what people get)

- Nationalized healthcare does not imply high cost and poor service (as demonstrated in multiple other countries)

A person in Country A has a heart transplant, a knee replacement and gets 7 prescriptions. A person in Country B has a heart transplant and 2 prescriptions.

Which country would show a 'more expensive' health care? You don't consider that in your continual rants of 'most expensive health care in the world'!

Yes, it might very well be that the US has the best doctors in the world. But we're talking about the healthcare system here. And are these best doctors available to all US citizens regardless of their income through the private healthcare system?

- The current US healthcare system is not the best in the world (it's a good one, but not the best)

If you want to say access is better in other countries, you would undoubtedly be correct.

Whenever this topic comes up there is always the same disagreement of the definition of 'best health care'.

You (and the WHO) are talking about the definition of health care that includes access as part of the standards, when the other people such as me are referring to the quality of the doctors, wait times, and treatment and do not consider access as part of the equation.

 

[JohnRM]

Aren't you about to have your healthcare covered 100% by the U.S. taxpayer?

I am about to join the US Army and put my life at risk in service to my country in exchange for room, board, work clothes and equipment, for the equivalent of about $8/hr, and for decent healthcare package, yes. I am certainly not getting it for free.

 

[JohnRM]

So this means that if you wind up in a horrible accident that will cripple you to an extent that you will no longer be to work and support yourself so that you wouldn't be able to afford the medical help that you would need to continue living (iron lung); that you would consider it fine and dandy if your parents would have to pay for all that, in effect bankrupting them and forcing them to work at Wallmart until they are 76?

Why would it be wrong for your government/fellow citizens tax dollars to help you out in that situation?

If it happens while I am on the job and I wasn't do anything that I wasn't supposed to be doing, then worker's compensation and the company's insurance will cover me.

If I am involved in a car accident and I wasn't doing anything that I wasn't supposed to be doing, then the other guy's insurance will cover me.

etc etc etc...

 

[El_Machinae]

John, what's your point?

The other systems are cheaper, on all indicators (tax, out of pocket, % of gov't revenue, etc.). They have a better summed average of health indicators. They show lower growth rates in new costs. As health concerns grab a greater and greater chunk of the GDP, societies are going to need all the efficiencies they can get.

You're basically proud that you're in a system where people can pay through the nose for a medical service which might be better than average? (if it's a field where they'd get worse care, they're still paying through the nose)

 

[Hygro]

To see an Endocrinologist I had to do a back and forth with their office and a few other medical offices as well as a hospital, taking now 6 weeks, all because my insurance that I do have was not convenient enough for their office.

Don't tell me private care doesn't produce silly wait times.

 

[wicshade]

i have skimmed throught some of the post in this thread but not all of them, i have seen several post about people not wanting to pay for a bumb/crackheads healthcar, You already do, a hospital can not deny medical treatment to anyone in need, so if some 350 # crack head comes in off the street with a heart atack then the hopital gets stuck with the bill. That means the middle class consumer has to pay for the unpaid bill. Im not saying free health care is the answer i just wanted to point out it is only free if you are poor because someone with a house car and job will have to pay for his medical treatment.

and in response to what john said above insurance will only give you so much, and then they will make you fight for every penny you get from them(and insurance companies know that most people won't fight that hard), in fact i think that is the kind of mind set that is making Americas healthcare sick. Every body thinks that because it is not their fault that someone else will pay for it. If we could pass legislation to start throughing these unecessary lawsuits out of court we could lower medical bills some.

 

[Sanctum]

It seems as though John only sticks to his morals when it suits him, ie accepting health insurance from the military because he's 'risking his life for his country'. He, however, doesn't want anyone else to have free healthcare, despite that they're actually helping out the country more then he ever could in the military (there's no threat to the US that I know of, so I don't really see the benefit for the general US populance, as far as what the government says, the current wars are being fought to bring freedom to other people, and thus spending money on other people, which is what Johns against as the Iraqis should solve their own problems and overthrow their own dictators by his logic). Also, construction workers, for example, have a risk in their jobs to, so should they deserve healthcare? And what about schoolteachers, they went to school and worked hard, but I doubt a teacher could afford health care unless he/she had an insurance plan or was covered by the government (and John just said that he expects himself to pay for himself and no one else, so unless he's just saying random stuff I'd think he'd expect other people to do the same).

This probably isn't a very well written argument, but Johns posts all seem so full of hypocrisy and they never have valid opinions, just the whole 'my morals are right, everyone elses are wrong and the general populance should adhere to my will-also, I require more proof, as the 35 pages you have given me are not sufficent). I'd like to point out to you John, that even if universal healthcare was implemented, you could choose not to pay the health care tax, and thus allowing you to live how you want (and you don't use insurance either, so having no insurance companies wouldn't affect you.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I'd like to point out to you John, that even if universal healthcare was implemented, you could choose not to pay the health care tax, and thus allowing you to live how you want (and you don't use insurance either, so having no insurance companies wouldn't affect you.

What?! The health care tax is voluntary?

 

[Strider]

Since the start of this year (2007) I've made several trips to a doctor:

1 dentist for a check-up
6 doctor visits... check-up, check-up, burned hand, check-up, broken toe, concussion
1 dermatologist trip (for the burned hand)

That makes a total of 8 visits in about 6 months (half a year) all of which I paid for myself.

I don't know where the others got a average of 2 doctor trips a year, but that doesn't seem to hold true in the least bit for me.

Also.. I don't smoke.. I'm not overweight.. I exercise regularly. For the most part I'm fairly healthy

 

[Bill3000]

Also.. I don't smoke.. I'm not overweight.. I exercise regularly. For the most part I'm fairly healthy

Faking car crashes isn't healthy

 

[Pokurcz]

Don't get trollish Pokurcz. If you haven't noticed Igloo and I have both posted in this thread.

The answers to the complex health care problems in the US will likely come from two sources with federal support. The business community and the states. The federal government is not capable of running a program of this magnitude.

We already have a federally run program, medicare/medicaid is already using more than it receives and will need to see increased funding (stat). The boomers are quickly approaching access medicare and the fact remains they'll need 4x the health care than their past.

Just trying to be funny.

Well your probably right that the answers will come from "The business community and the states.", unless somebody high up does something revolutionary, which does not seem likely with all those insurance companies wanting to keep the status quo.

It is just that to me it is so obvious, that the insurance companies in the US as it is now, are nothing but a costly middle hand, that needs some serious pruning. Because as the system looks now it is a bureaucratic quagmire, that swallows resources that the poor and disadvantaged need. Resources that are already there with cash to spare.

 

[Pokurcz]

If it happens while I am on the job and I wasn't do anything that I wasn't supposed to be doing, then worker's compensation and the company's insurance will cover me.

If I am involved in a car accident and I wasn't doing anything that I wasn't supposed to be doing, then the other guy's insurance will cover me.

etc etc etc...

What if you slip in the shower (not doing anything that you where not supposed to be doing), and break your neck and survive paralyzed from the neck down?

 

[wicshade]

I have just found evidece that will debunk those charts i saw in early post about world health care. These charts are all made to show life expectancy from birth until death, America is about = with england, but you will see that France and Japan have the higher rates. I am going to point out the fact that America has lost many lives in the past 60 years do to war, I dont think France or Japan has last anything at least nothing comparable in terms of propotions of US losses.

so Basicaly those charts actualy miss represent the U.S healthcare,

I will be adding some facts and figures .

Korea: 37,000
vietnam: 58,000
Iraq: 4000

 

[Grisu]

I have just found evidece that will debunk those charts i saw in early post about world health care. These charts are all made to show life expectancy from birth until death, America is about = with england, but you will see that France and Japan have the higher rates. I am going to point out the fact that America has lost many lives in the past 60 years do to war, I dont think France or Japan has last anything at least nothing comparable in terms of propotions of US losses.

so Basicaly those charts actualy miss represent the U.S healthcare,

I will be adding some facts and figures .

Korea: 37,000
vietnam: 58,000
Iraq: 4000

I hope you do know that every year about 2 million people die in the US?
a hunder thousand more or less over 60 years is hardly going to make a difference in live expectancy

 

[Che Guava]

I have just found evidece that will debunk those charts i saw in early post about world health care. These charts are all made to show life expectancy from birth until death, America is about = with england, but you will see that France and Japan have the higher rates. I am going to point out the fact that America has lost many lives in the past 60 years do to war, I dont think France or Japan has last anything at least nothing comparable in terms of propotions of US losses.

so Basicaly those charts actualy miss represent the U.S healthcare,

I will be adding some facts and figures .

Korea: 37,000
vietnam: 58,000
Iraq: 4000

Interesting take, but I don't think those wars alone would account for much of a difference in longevity. If you add up the wars listed above, you come up with 94 000 americans lost in major conflicts. Given that the current US population is 300,000,000, war losses represent less than a 10th of a percent of the population. Not exactly going to skew values that much.

 

[JollyRoger]

If it happens while I am on the job and I wasn't do anything that I wasn't supposed to be doing, then worker's compensation and the company's insurance will cover me.

If I am involved in a car accident and I wasn't doing anything that I wasn't supposed to be doing, then the other guy's insurance will cover me.

etc etc etc...

What's to say the other guy is insured? Maybe he's playing the free rider game like you. And uninsured motorist that strikes and seriously injures someone that does not have medical insurance (or the means to pay for expensive care) generally means a free trip to the emegency room for the guy without medical insurance. The costs get passed on to the more responsible consumers.

 

[dgfred]

What's to say the other guy is insured? Maybe he's playing the free rider game like you. And uninsured motorist that strikes and seriously injures someone that does not have medical insurance (or the means to pay for expensive care) generally means a free trip to the emegency room for the guy without medical insurance. The costs get passed on to the more responsible consumers.

Uh no. If you get hit by an uninsured motorist- the most likely result is a large lawsuit to pay for all of your injuries. Of course the uninsured motorist
may not have anything to get by the lawsuit, but that is what will happen.
There is no way national healthcare will work, unless taxes are increased by
a large margin... that's just the way it would have to be.

 

[JollyRoger]

Uh no. If you get hit by an uninsured motorist- the most likely result is a large lawsuit to pay for all of your injuries. Of course the uninsured motorist may not have anything to get by the lawsuit, but that is what will happen.

What are the realistic chances an uninsured motorist has the reachable assets to make a lawsuit worthwhile? Slim to none.

 

[dgfred]

What are the realistic chances an uninsured motorist has the reachable assets to make a lawsuit worthwhile? Slim to none.

Chances are not so bad, most are just sorry. I've have been an insurance
agent for almost 20 years, so on this subject I have a pretty good idea what
usually happens.