Quantcast

Universal Healthcare

1000-Oaks

Monkey
May 8, 2003
778
0
Simi Valley, CA
Speaking of not paying attention, I did say this existing coverage was only for families making less than around $36K per year. I have a buddy whose family is actually on the program, and my GF is an analyist for a health insurance company. So I hear a few things from folks who know.
 
Last edited:
C

curtix

Guest
Um, no.

This covers only children who slide between the Medical gap and being "wealthy" enough to be privately insured.

Like I said before...unless you're old or have kids (or ARE a kid - also, a qualifier for Medical/Medicaid is that you're essentially destitute), you're pretty fvcked. You haven't been paying attention.
Not trying to rain on your parade but as far as states I have lived I have had to use free health care a few times so I can attest to the fact that is exists. I was making like 16k a year at the time, and never had to pay anyone anything for more than one visit, with more than one doctor. There is stuff you have to fill out, work to do, but it is real.
I am late to the conversation but has anyone mentioned medicare fail. I mean that is government health care, what about Vets hospitals, same. Both FAIL!
 
C

curtix

Guest
Universal care goes a little too far. We should at least limit things to this solar system.
That wouldn't sound as good on the political trail now would it. I mean I thought I heard / read somewhere that some democrat was claiming to be able to stop water from rising and healing the planet. I mean he must be divine.
 

ire

Turbo Monkey
Aug 6, 2007
6,196
4
I'm for universal care, but we need a complete overhaul of the medical system....from preventative treatment to payment. As a society it benefits us to have all of our citizens be healthy, productive, and contributing. I read in an article recently (I'll try and track it down) that Michigan's universal system is having huge cash shortfalls because they didn't reform the system, just forced everyone to buy in.
 
C

curtix

Guest
Now. Why not?
1) Its impossible to do without a mandate - the way Obama claims to be able to do it because the flaw in his plan is that everyone will sign up, because if they don't then the taxation wont balance.

2) It gives the government more power. That should be auto fail but for those who don't get it. If the government controls the health care, should they justifiable also control your life style. Helmet law for snowboarding. National smoking ban, limitation on Alcohol consumption. Penalties for being overweight. Limitations on the number of kids you can have to control the load on the health care system.

3) Most people from countries with government run health care don't like it as much as ours. I work with quite a few of them and most prefer our health care system.

Anyway I think our system does to be revamped, and people that can't get health care should be set up to get it, just like welfare, and so on. But those who can fend for themselves - Should! It is not the governments job to babysit us, it is the governments job to represent us. The government already has to much power as it is. Here is a snap shot - Helmet Laws! How come the government can take away "my body my choice" for motorcyclist, but then allow abortions.

You do not want to give the government more power. You will never get it back without a bloody war, look at history. Look at failed socialist attempts at government. I am surprised people never learn.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,249
9,125
curtix, you're all for making broad slashing statements against "socialist attempts at government", but your same statements belie a poor understanding of both the current situation and obama's proposed plan.

1) the current situation sucks, and coverage is often prohibitively expensive. your own anecdotal evidence is worthless unless you can come up with a list that shows health insurance options for poor and borderline people in all 50 states. until then i'm sticking with the census figures that are frankly horrid: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/p60no235_table6.pdf . key figures from 2007: 24.5% of people with incomes less than $25k uninsured. 21.1% uninsured for $25-50k. 19.5% of black people uninsured, 32.1% of hispanic people uninsured.

2) here's obama's plan: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ . frankly, i prefer hillary's plan since she would have mandated coverage. obama's does not for adults, but merely provides an option with no preexisting condition denials. basically if one cannot obtain better insurance elsewhere then they would be able to enroll in this plan. it's asinine to characterize this as socialized medicine for several reasons. the first is that a huge chunk of current spending is by the government, through medicare, medicaid, and the VA system. (medicare pays for my salary, for instance.) the government already sets rates for reimbursement de facto due to their spending power and because the private companies always follow suit. second, it's not mandated coverage -- if you still want to go uninsured or keep your current plan nothing will change.

in summary: turn off the tv and get your facts straight before aping bill o'reilly.
 
Last edited:
C

curtix

Guest
Bwahahaha...aww that was good. Ah *snif* funny stuff.
Facts and reality are a mother I know. I can't help it if I myself have lived in other countries with Socialized Medicine and know people that live here from countries with socialized medicine. Just keep drinking your "kool-aid" kids The Lord Almighty Government will solve all your problems... :crazy:
 
C

curtix

Guest
curtix, you're all for making broad slashing statements against "socialist attempts at government", but your same statements belie a poor understanding of both the current situation and obama's proposed plan.

1) the current situation sucks, and coverage is often prohibitively expensive. your own anecdotal evidence is worthless unless you can come up with a list that shows health insurance options for poor and borderline people in all 50 states. until then i'm sticking with the census figures that are frankly horrid: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/p60no235_table6.pdf . key figures from 2007: 24.5% of people with incomes less than $25k uninsured. 21.1% uninsured for $25-50k. 19.5% of black people uninsured, 32.1% of hispanic people uninsured.
Are we talking insurance or health care here. I was advocating the position that you can get cared for not that you would get insurance. Please re-read my post before trying to be so condescending.

2) here's obama's plan: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ . frankly, i prefer hillary's plan since she would have mandated coverage. obama's does not for adults, but merely provides an option with no preexisting condition denials. basically if one cannot obtain better insurance elsewhere then they would be able to enroll in this plan. it's asinine to characterize this as socialized medicine for several reasons. the first is that a huge chunk of current spending is by the government, through medicare, medicaid, and the VA system. (medicare pays for my salary, for instance.) the government already sets rates for reimbursement de facto due to their spending power and because the private companies always follow suit. second, it's not mandated coverage -- if you still want to go uninsured or keep your current plan nothing will change.

in summary: turn off the tv and get your facts straight before aping bill o'reilly.
I have read Obama's plan and AGAIN if you missed point 1 it won't work That is WHY you prefer Hilary's. Her plan DID mandate. Here is point 1 again because you obviously didn't read it: "1) Its impossible to do without a mandate - the way Obama claims to be able to do it because the flaw in his plan is that everyone will sign up, because if they don't then the taxation wont balance."

What does O'Reilly have to do with health care anyway brother. Nevermind that's just the kool-aid talking I guess.
Riddle me this - Is socialized medicine a Socialist idea? Yes or no?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Curtix is a great illustration of my point earlier in this thread.

Americans are too stupid to deserve universal healthcare. That's why they'll continue to pay twice the amount per capita for less care than people in countries that are reasonable do. Dumbest people on the face of the earth, excluding Australians...
 
C

curtix

Guest
Curtix is a great illustration of my point earlier in this thread.

Americans are too stupid to deserve universal healthcare. That's why they'll continue to pay twice the amount per capita for less care than people in countries that are reasonable do. Dumbest people on the face of the earth, excluding Australians...
Americans just like freedom of choice man, its not about stupid, its about letting the government run something else into the ground. In a perfect world with perfect people and perfect government Communism works too. But here in reality it just doesn't.
What country are you from?
Have you ever lived in a place with socialized medicine and stood in line for 2 hours to get your medicine?
Or should I just take it from your word ; I am stupid and you are not. Your very knowledgeable on the topic. Sorry I don't just respect your opinion because you tell me I am stupid. You will have to do better than that.

Since you all are so sold on the idea. Should the government be able to regulate how much I smoke if I want to smoke, should it ban smoking?:clue:
 
C

curtix

Guest
Canada. Yes. Never.

Are you Trig Palin by any chance?
No but you really are dense. I work with two Canadian imports here in America. They both prefer the health care system here to there. Another co-workers wife ( who currently lives in Canada ) is still waiting (4th month) to see a doctor about a private matter. She has been requesting it almost weekly and put off and put off but your wonderful health care system.

You poor attempt at humor simply demonstrates your ignorance.

And you never answered "Should the government be able to regulate how much I smoke if I want to smoke, should it ban smoking?"
 
C

curtix

Guest
No. Should the company you work for be able to?
I agree. But that is exactly the power you offering to the government by allowing them to control health care.

As far as companies go. I wish they would let people do what they want long as it isnt bothering anyonoe else. Besides if you want to smoke they should charge you more for your insurance - wait that is how it works. Same with me - I pay a little more because I ride a motorcycle. But you can always get another job if you don't like the one you have, you can't get another government. Well unless you leave the country. Either way if I do not like the way a company treats me - I will find another job. That is the power of choice, free market! If they piss enough people off they will go out of biz.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
But you can always get another job if you don't like the one you have, you can't get another government.
You can't? I know "it doesn't matter who you vote for as the government always gets in" but you might wanna explain yourself a bit more there.

Smokes are a poor example anyway as the are one of the most regulated things out there. Their price, availability, advertising and place of consumption are all regulated in most countries.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
No but you really are dense. I work with two Canadian imports here in America.
Well, **** son, why didn't you say so. You're obviously a health care policy expert. By the way, don't listen to Toshi, he's a 12 year old with thick glasses and horrible acne who's addicted to gay pornography. He doesn't know anything about the healthcare debate.
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
Well, **** son, why didn't you say so. You're obviously a health care policy expert. By the way, don't listen to Toshi, he's a 12 year old with thick glasses and horrible acne who's addicted to gay pornography. He doesn't know anything about the healthcare debate.
He is not 12.
 
C

curtix

Guest
You can't? I know "it doesn't matter who you vote for as the government always gets in" but you might wanna explain yourself a bit more there.

Smokes are a poor example anyway as the are one of the most regulated things out there. Their price, availability, advertising and place of consumption are all regulated in most countries.
Government hardly ever RETURNS freedoms to people once lost. Just try to overturn the seat belt laws in some states. Look how long the Harley guys have been fighting the Helmet laws. I am simply illustrating those points. Look at offshore drilling watch Nancy hold congress hostage waiting for a vote. It just will be a long and painful fight that might take generations. Plus how easy is it going to be to convince the government " that not look out for your own good even if you don't agree with them" to let you smoke! When we all know its bad for you.
 
C

curtix

Guest
Well, **** son, why didn't you say so. You're obviously a health care policy expert. By the way, don't listen to Toshi, he's a 12 year old with thick glasses and horrible acne who's addicted to gay pornography. He doesn't know anything about the healthcare debate.
You keep on mashing the keys on your keyboard but you really don't say anything. Simple childlike insults and a plethora of useless commentary is all i reckon you carry in you "bag of wit and tricks". Your words discredit you thus making you seem more ignorant of these topics than I could have even hoped to demonstrate. So please carry on.:clapping:
 

valve bouncer

Master Dildoist
Feb 11, 2002
7,843
114
Japan
Government hardly ever RETURNS freedoms to people once lost. Just try to overturn the seat belt laws in some states. Look how long the Harley guys have been fighting the Helmet laws. I am simply illustrating those points. Look at offshore drilling watch Nancy hold congress hostage waiting for a vote. It just will be a long and painful fight that might take generations. Plus how easy is it going to be to convince the government " that not look out for your own good even if you don't agree with them" to let you smoke! When we all know its bad for you.
Well I don't regard not wearing a helmet or a seat belt as a freedom anyway. Even as a smoker I don't have any problems with regulations on smoking although an outright ban would be retarded as it would make the war on drugs look like handbags at 5 paces.
I think you are on the wrong end of the arguement if you think people from universal healthcarecountries want the American system.
 

1000-Oaks

Monkey
May 8, 2003
778
0
Simi Valley, CA
Curtix is a great illustration of my point earlier in this thread.

Americans are too stupid to deserve universal healthcare. That's why they'll continue to pay twice the amount per capita for less care than people in countries that are reasonable do. Dumbest people on the face of the earth, excluding Australians...
There we go again, resorting to personal attacks instead of facts and drama to "back up" liberal arguements...

Please list the figures on these countries that are successful? Eliminating all the countries with failing national programs pretty much makes that list a blank page.
 
C

curtix

Guest
Well I don't regard not wearing a helmet or a seat belt as a freedom anyway. Even as a smoker I don't have any problems with regulations on smoking although an outright ban would be retarded as it would make the war on drugs look like handbags at 5 paces.
I think you are on the wrong end of the arguement if you think people from universal healthcarecountries want the American system.
I use the helmet law to point out a place where government has over stepped its bounds and abused its power. It has mandated that I do something that I may not want to do because it will protect me and only me from some degree(s), in theory, of harm. This is absolutely no different that the government mandating a ban on smoking to protect you, and aguablely the "second hand smoke victums" from harm, etc.... They wouldn't do that now I agree, but what about when 5000 non-smokers taxes are paying for your lung cancer treatment that could have been prevented if you had only quit smoking. If they have the power to do so - do you think they wouldn't? Really?
 

1000-Oaks

Monkey
May 8, 2003
778
0
Simi Valley, CA
Here's a perfect example of "great" national health care. A friend of mine from Scotland is a career registered nurse, working in a large hospital.

Her standing orders are that if she ever gets sick or hurt, my girlfriend and I are to do whatever it takes, whatever it costs, to get her to a hospital in the US.

The hospital were she works intentionally lets people die if their care is going to be expensive and a burden on the barely-hanging-on state. Their national health care system is just too costly and after years of implemenation it's going down the tubes, so they have to pick and choose the patients who will "best benefit from care". Obviously this is hard for the doctors, but that's the situation.

Wow, let's bring that program here, sounds awesome.
 

1000-Oaks

Monkey
May 8, 2003
778
0
Simi Valley, CA
If you're happy with the fact that you pay twice as much for an inferior product, I'm not really going to try hard to sway your opinion.
Our insurance isn't really "paying twice as much"; a good portion of the premium goes to pay inflated bills from hospitals who have to spread out the cost of care for illegals. (do the countries you mention have illegal alien problems as bad as ours?) That cost gets passed all the way through to the insured. The insurance companies can't absorb that cost, they only average about 5% profit. (a lot less than most industries)

So it either gets passed through or the government "pays" for that care, either way the taxpayers (upper middle class and up, who are already paying for private insurance) get stuck with the bill. Same result.
 
C

curtix

Guest
Our insurance isn't really "paying twice as much"; a good portion of the premium goes to pay inflated bills from hospitals who have to spread out the cost of care for illegals. (do the countries you mention have illegal alien problems as bad as ours?) That cost gets passed all the way through to the insured. The insurance companies can't absorb that cost, they only average about 5% profit. (a lot less than most industries)

So it either gets passed through or the government "pays" for that care, either way the taxpayers (upper middle class and up, who are already paying for private insurance) get stuck with the bill. Same result.
You might want to add to that the fact that the doctors have to carry a ridiculous amount of insurance because of BS Lawsuits. Oh by the way try suing the government because some government funded doctor makes a mistake. Talk about FAIL.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Our insurance isn't really "paying twice as much"; a good portion of the premium goes to pay inflated bills from hospitals who have to spread out the cost of care for illegals. (do the countries you mention have illegal alien problems as bad as ours?) That cost gets passed all the way through to the insured. The insurance companies can't absorb that cost, they only average about 5% profit. (a lot less than most industries)

So it either gets passed through or the government "pays" for that care, either way the taxpayers (upper middle class and up, who are already paying for private insurance) get stuck with the bill. Same result.
Per capita spending. The numbers aren't hidden. Look them up.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
The inflated costs are hidden in the line-item charges on each hospital bill.
ding! ding! ding!

ever take a gander at someone bill who's gravely ill or recovering from surgery? ridiculous line items from never-before-met-nor-previously-consulted doctors who come by to "check" at some arbitrarily high cost, AND DID NOTHING.

seriously, i think we're done here.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
The inflated costs are hidden in the line-item charges on each hospital bill.

Explain how looking up per capita spending is going to reveal that cost?
Per capita spending is what we actually spend. The US number is the highest in the world, both in per capita spending and as a % of GDP.

It doesn't matter how the costs get inflated. The grim reality is that the US system is the most expensive, and it isn't the best. Keep cheerleading.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
Our insurance isn't really "paying twice as much"; a good portion of the premium goes to pay inflated bills from hospitals who have to spread out the cost of care for illegals.
First of all, regardless of the reasons (and there are many) Americans are paying twice as much. No way around it.

Second, you are pulling numbers out of your ass if you think that illegals are the main reason for rising healthcare costs. If you were right, the problem wouldn't touch states with low numbers of illegals... ask folks in Michigan if their helathcare costs have gone up.

Malpractice law (and insurance) is a large part of the problem, along with a whole host of smaller systemic problems with the system itself. Don't try to oversimplify it.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
ding! ding! ding!

ever take a gander at someone bill who's gravely ill or recovering from surgery? ridiculous line items from never-before-met-nor-previously-consulted doctors who come by to "check" at some arbitrarily high cost, AND DID NOTHING.

seriously, i think we're done here.
Certainly part of it. Are you also going to blame that one on illegals?