|
Post by Bish on Oct 1, 2009 18:22:16 GMT -4
There are programs like COBRA that will cover you for a least a few months at a reasonable cost when you are between jobs so you don't get totally screwed.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Oct 1, 2009 18:55:39 GMT -4
So, basically you have to be young and perfectly healthy and still pay around 100 dollars, which is a fucking lot of money to me and Cobra is a joke, because it is around that price if not more for all the health care amenities; health, vision, dental, and so on.
I'm sorry, but I can't even afford that much a month to have a fail safe in case I get hurt, I have to pay bills and shit.
I totally agree that we should cut spending in other things that don't benefit America what so ever and use that money for health care. For all I care Iraq can pay for our fucking health care, since they have been stock piling their money and using ours.
Wouldn't you technically get paid more money at you job as well, so that your employer isn't paying for your benefits, instead that could go to your salary.
As for the Communist comment that is ridiculous. So, apparently you are for insurance companies making money off of people being sick? Not like I said nobody should profit off of anything, just certain things seem unethical and shouldn't profit off of something like health care.
|
|
|
Post by J-Sav on Oct 1, 2009 19:04:21 GMT -4
What we have here is a moral issue. And it is sad that in this country, we have to have a debate about something like someone's health.
I understand that with universal health care, we would have in increase in taxes. There is a chance that people not citizens of this country may benefit from our system. And there could be a problem the availability of doctors if we were to provide health care for all Americans. But let me say again, we're dealing with a moral issue.
If we want to be a world leader, and an example to the world, we need to show it by doing the right thing, and provide health care for all Americans. Yes, there will be some inconvenience, but we should not look at it as what is it to me, but how would help people less fortunate than me? If we are a so called "Christian nation", wouldn't that be the godly thing to do?
There are some things that should not have a price tag on it, and that is a human being's health. It's not about taxes or big government. It's about doing the right thing, and setting an example by showing the compassion of the US, by caring for our less fortunate. There is a story about a mother of 2 kids. She is blind, because she has a rare disease the can be passed down to her kids. To make sure that her kids have the treatment, she forgoed her treatment and went blind, so her kids don't have to, because she couldn't afford treatment for 3 people. No one should ever have to make that choice.
I think the public option is a good start, but not what needs to be if we want to be the perfect union we all talk about. I do not care if I'm unconvinced by more taxes, or have to wait a little longer to see a doctor. I just think it is the right thing to do, and it is as simple as that.
In terms of Sicko, I saw it, and I found it interesting. But like Dominates said, you can by in to Michael Moore's movies too much. Roger and Me was good though.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Oct 1, 2009 19:14:00 GMT -4
Obviously he does mostly a one-sided slant, but the actual ideas he uses is what I get from it. We act like we are this awesome great nation, but the same nation doesn't give a shit about its own people. Most of the people in the country don't give a fuck about other Americans, its all about what I do for me.
Sad to me that the friendliest time for people being friendly towards other human beings and Americans, was right after 9/11. Of course that has subsided and people are back to where they were before that.
The education system is pretty fucked as well in far as furthering education in College and loans. You get so far in debt that you don't have a choice, but to take some job you didn't even really go to school for, not saying that has happened to everyone, but on average and a huge percentage of the population it has. If college was more affordable, then you might have more doctors and what not, that would work into the Universal health care system.
|
|
|
Post by Jogo on Oct 1, 2009 19:25:57 GMT -4
Ok, obviously it comes from taxes, but I don't think the taxes are really any different than what we have now, only difference is the US chooses to use the taxes on other stuff that doesn't benefit the people as much. That's absolutely false. Every healthcare plan laid out by our government would lead to a huge increase in government spending. If the government would cut our military spending or other entitlement programs and use the profits from that to go towards healthcare I'd listen to the argument. I am absolutely against increasing taxes to pay for healthcare. That's a fine opinion but at least I hope you realise how selfish that way of thinking is. You are basically saying you don't like to live in a situation where those who make more money pay (with taxes) for the health care, education etc of those who don't make enough to afford it. I live in a socialist country and it's basically like this (very simplified version of it of course). If you make less than $A you don't pay taxes, if you make between A and B you pay 10% of your income, between B and C 15%, and so on until a max of 42% of your income if you make a lot of money. In countries like Denmark it can go up to 70% and they seem to live pretty well as a whole. This way you get to have public health care, public schools, public college, unemployed benificts, disease benificts, retirement funds etc. Since personally I have a decent income, I wouldn't mind paying for my own health care (especially since private health care still exists and is much faster with much less people "in line"), pay for my own school and save for my retirement if that ment paying much less taxes than what it comes out of my paycheck every month. I would even be in favor. But I do realise that for me to have more money some people would live in even shittier conditions or maybe even die in an alley. Of course that this system allows some to live of it when they really don't need and that's the down side of it, but hopefully that's a minority and the whole shouldn't pay for some. The upside is that I can walk in my capital and see no more than a few homeless guys while when I was in California for example, I saw a beatifull state but with tons of homeless people all around (mostly LA but SF too for ex). While I do believe this system is far from perfect, it still looks nicer than the everyone for itself. It's like Democracy. It's not a perfect system but it still beats the alternatives. I do get you are against the hand of governament in society/economy. In principal, it has some upsides. But on the other hand there are a few services that shouldn't be just private (public with private alternatives is a good way) since every bussiness is profit oriented, which is the way it should be, but some basic stuff essencial for decent human living should have a non profit orientation, and therefor (at least if well managed) be cheaper since it can cut the profit margins. You can't expect a health insurance company, supported by private investors, to want to pay for the health care of a 50 years male unless they are well compensated. Of course they want every male in his 20s and will even offer good prices but that's because the probability of them needing health care is very low. Hell I'm reaching 30 and I can't remember the last time I needed health care in the past 10. This is supposed to be the prime of my body cells. Of course in 10 or 20 years when I need them, I won't see them reaching their hand to help because I will cost them money. That's when I will need the state. I think the 100% capitalist view of the system got you a good idea of what it can lead to in the recent world crisis situation. And if the world economy is now showing signs of recovery is because the Governaments of the world reached out the "help" their private businesses allowing everything to not fall like a castle of cards. Just my opinion and why I think that your view of less governament = better world is not 100% right. If the state hand means more corruption and less eficiency to you, and trust me I can see that too (like I said its far from perfect), than you should fight the corruption and inneficiency, not what the state hand should stand for.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Oct 1, 2009 19:48:48 GMT -4
The problem is the United States government isn't very good at spotting and fixing inefficiency in spending. They generally just throw more money at the problem. That is a fear I personally have about a national health care plan although it would help out my Mom and Stepdad whose boss just cut his health benefits (citing the economy) and is too young (55) for Medicare.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Oct 1, 2009 19:52:54 GMT -4
Seems like someone who isn't an idiot and looking out for their best interests, needs to be appointed to clean up all this fucked up spending for stuff that is not necessary and use it for things that actually benefit the American people.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Oct 2, 2009 4:28:26 GMT -4
Is that it, I solved all conflicts and arguments with this statement above? How about more perception and ideas from everybody, that is the point of the thread and topic for me. It is not like I will agree with everybody, but I like good argument and to see what everybody else feels, especially from different countries.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Oct 2, 2009 9:59:45 GMT -4
Is that it, I solved all conflicts and arguments with this statement above? How about more perception and ideas from everybody, that is the point of the thread and topic for me. It is not like I will agree with everybody, but I like good argument and to see what everybody else feels, especially from different countries. You basically created a position out of thin air that would have unheard of power. It would be unconstitutional and would require Spock from Star Trek to run it as you have described.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Oct 2, 2009 11:30:32 GMT -4
unconstitutional? There have been plenty things in the country that are unconstitutional, plus we are at a different time in life that the constitution needs to be adjusted some.
Seems fairly unconstitutional for a corporation to consider it self as a person in the country, but they found a loop hole in very old writing, that is unconstitutional to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2009 11:55:26 GMT -4
Seems like someone who isn't an idiot and looking out for their best interests, needs to be appointed to clean up all this fucked up spending for stuff that is not necessary and use it for things that actually benefit the American people. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There has never been an efficient government in the history of civilization. Giving someone absolute power to clean up all inefficient government spending not only wouldn't work due to the nature of government, but would also eventually corrupt that person and cause the problem to get worse. unconstitutional? There have been plenty things in the country that are unconstitutional, plus we are at a different time in life that the constitution needs to be adjusted some. Seems fairly unconstitutional for a corporation to consider it self as a person in the country, but they found a loop hole in very old writing, that is unconstitutional to me. The government allowing a corporation to be considered a person has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with the government overstepping it's bounds for it's own benefit - something that you are proposing the government do AGAIN with health care.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2009 12:01:46 GMT -4
The education system is pretty fucked as well in far as furthering education in College and loans. You get so far in debt that you don't have a choice, but to take some job you didn't even really go to school for, not saying that has happened to everyone, but on average and a huge percentage of the population it has. If college was more affordable, then you might have more doctors and what not, that would work into the Universal health care system. So not only do you want the government to provide health care, you want them to provide college to everyone? That will make a college degree about as valuable as a high school degree currently is - and oversaturate the work force. Then you'd need a Masters degree to get ahead. At which point I'm sure you'd say that the government needs to be providing everyone with a "free" opportunity to get a Masters degree. Trillions of dollars later, everyone has a Masters degrees, and now you want the government to provide everyone with their PhD's. I also think it's pretty ironic that you want the government more involved in health care, then point to an education system that's run almost entirely by the government and call it "pretty fucked."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2009 12:19:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by kfilament on Oct 2, 2009 14:20:52 GMT -4
There are programs like COBRA that will cover you for a least a few months at a reasonable cost when you are between jobs so you don't get totally screwed. COBRA is a nice idea. We need more thinking along the lines of COBRA. WWhile the rates are a bit high, if you know you have to stay continually covered COBRA gives you the option, but reams you in the ass at the same time, but its better than nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Oct 12, 2009 17:07:04 GMT -4
391: More Is Less An hour explaining the American health care system, specifically, why it is that costs keep rising. One story looks at the doctors, one at the patients and one at the insurance industry. www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=391IntroductionRising Cost of Health: Health Insurance Polcy for Family of 4 2000-20007 $6,000 to $13,000 At the current rate of growth average family will spend 38,000 a year in health care costs in 9 years Americans spend 50% more on HC than any other countries yet show no proof of being more healthy (Infant Mortality 45th, Life Expectancy 50th) Are Doctors to blame?Doctors can differ greatly how they choose to "fix" the same illness or problem. Doctors are paid per procedure or per visit. Its basically a commission based position. Doctors that have a smaller market share make up for it by lowering their requirements for expensive procedures. Doctors fear of lawsuit leads to more unnecessary procedures. "Better safe than sorry" More doctors... to compete each doctor encouraged more doctor visits for clients and lowered requirements for procedures. Latest high tech back operation procedure costs more but is not more effective than old less costly procedure. 2003 study... high spending seniors received 60% more care yet were not more healthy and in some cases less healthy as a result. 33% of medical care delivered in USA is unneeded Are patients to blame? Obama " Don't pay for things that don't make you more healthy" 1 billion in stimulus package to determine which tests actually work Human nature is "better safe than sorry" 99.9% sure is not enough when it comes to own health or family member's health 50% believe people get unnecessary healthcare only 16% thinks its them Prostate Exam is an example of a possible unnecessary test. It finds way more pre cancer sites that would never be harmful if left alone For every life saved 48 men have unnecessary procedures. National guidelines say for Drs to inform the patient of the pros/cons and let the patient make the decision, but juries have decided thats not enough and have found hospitals liable for not testing for Prostate cancer despite the fact the patient declined it after being informed of the pros and cons. Are insurance companies to blame?Less poweful than you think Doctors/Hospitals fight Insurance agencies over fees Doctors use patients to pressure insurance agencies to accept higher fees Patients think emotionally and not economically or intelligently Strength of hospital market share = higher fees charged to the insurance company = higher premiums paid by patients within that market Insurance providers are seen as the bad guy when denying certain claims when sometimes the patient is thinking emotionally and not intelligently HMOs worked to keep health care costs low by controlling which doctors to see and which procedures were necessary, but were hated. Insurance agencies are afraid of similar backlash. " Noone should stand between you and your doctor" = " No one should ever say a procedure is unnecesary" Patients dont care about cost when they need care Insurance agencies profits (3-5%) of the money that flows through their books. Rising health care costs as whole = more profits. Health Reform DebateLittle discussion on how to stop rising costs There are some provisions in the bill to allow certain govt officials to experiment with Medicare paying system, but they dont force anybody to make any changes. Best case scenario change would be less than expected higher rising cost, but could be imitated nationwide if it turned out to work. "Less healthcare" is a political loser and detailed changes would never pass Congress All healthcare stakeholders (Doctors, Insurers, Patients etc...) admit that changes need to be made "We are on red alert" Insurance executive
|
|