On Healthcare in the U.S.

[Vibecrewangel]

UnDeath

I think the debit card thing is an interesting way to go. Hopefully it will work. When it comes to social services CA has quite possibly the worst system. Actually, I can't blame the system......I can only blame those who abuse it. It wasn't always that way tho. If it weren't for medical I probably would have died as a child. If my nana hadn't recieved the pittance she did to help raise the 3 of us we probably wouldn't have had a roof over our heads. She never took food stamps though. And she would only take the money and medical offered to her as a foster parent. She refused food stamps and anything else welfare related even though she could have used it. Instead she worked into her 70's to make sure we were comfortable. I never had designer clothes, but I also never went hungry.
My nana was and still is a proud woman. Because of her all 3 of us broke that ugly cycle. None of us are on welfare. Nor do any of us have kids. We may not be doing as financially well as we would like, but we have never taken anything that we didn't need.

I just wish more people had been able to have my nana to raise them.

[UnDeath]

my bad, went a bit off topic there.
Anyway, I have to disagree for the most part on the government healthcare for everyone. Mostly due to the fact that those who can afford it, can pay for private insurance. Let the government act like a safety net, as someone stated earlier. Also, there are state programs that those in need can turn to if need be, so its not really as bleak as people make it out to be if your poor. In fact, Im looking into this Washington State ran health insurance currently. Its not the best by far, but its all I really need.
that brings me to another point. If healthcare was solely government funded, what about things that arent necessarily necessary, but would make things more convienent? Laser eye sugery is one thing. No way in hell the Government would cover that, but my friend got it done a few months ago, and the healthcare package that his employer (Albertsons) offered covered it completely. Sure, his vision could have been easily corrected with glasses, but his provider was of better quality, because his company could afford it. Everyone's happy, nobody got screwed, so why change it? Free healthcare is out there, you just need to know where to look.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

You see, the idea is to make everyone happy. The only people whom this would hurt are the extremely rich - people like Bill Gates, to whom a 2% tax increase is millions of dollars. But even they could not complain too much, because after all, with all the money they have would it make a difference?

So it's Ok to take money from rich people as long as they have plenty left over? Is it also Ok to force people to work on road crews as long as they aren't busy with something else or sleeping? We would all benefit from cleaner roads and highways, wouldn't we?

Or how about this: Let's just let the government handle ALL our property and resources! Surely we can trust the government to do the right thing all the time! Let's go dig up Vladimir Lenin and elect him President in 04! Yeah Baby!

FACT: The more government gains control over Healthcare, the more expensive and less equitable it becomes. This is a painfully obvious trend.

Your idea that somehow Big Government will manage to handle all our problems WHEN GOVERNMENT HAS NO CONSEQUENCES TO SUFFER FOR BAD DECISIONS is simply infantile and naive. You say profit like it's a bad thing, man!

Here's a for instance: You and your neighbor both get similar jobs at the same company. Your boss is a real hard ass and lets you know right on the first day that if you do not produce as expected, you will not get paid. Your neighbor's boss, however, shows up to work two hours late in a tye-dyed tee-shirt and flip-flops stinking of pot smoke and informs him that there is no way in the world he'll ever get fired no matter what he does because Mr. Hippy doesn't believe in being "The Man," dude...

You do the math.

[Vibecrewangel]

And this is why I make sure my employer covers my insurance. Nothing the government could give me will even come close. And I sure as hell can't afford it on my own.

It would be nice to see basic coverage for all. Vacinations, checkups, generic medicactions, emergency visits.......
But realistically, I know the current government would be unable to provide this in any reasonable way. And I don't see our government changing that much any time soon.

I swear we pay too much for beuracuracy and not nearly enough for the actually services.

[Zosimus]

Preechr, (in regard to your earlier post on this thread):

I agree with you, that very often people like to give up and hand the responsibility to someone else but, I also believe that given the right means (essentials in life/proper education) to work and think, people will generally ask for LESS and do more themselves, rather than to rely on a system that doesn't really do anything for them unless they are really really rich, OR on the absolute brink of poverty.

In the society we live in, people generally care alot about their children's future but, look closely at it right there...leave it to the capitalist and you will see someone, who would rather open another "Toys R' Useless" corporation than to look into a school teacher's salary!
"$60 billion Dollars".......I am sure it is EXACTLY as you stated: "ALL that non-educational money went to the administrations". As usual, NOTHING to the hardest working people in the very same institution, who are just barely above minimum wages!! Look at what the media is writing on how average and stupid our children are turning...The problem does not lie in the fact that the children have become stupid over time, or that the teachers have become rotten but, in the fact that there is no money given to them to GET educated (i.e. Smaller classrooms, more assistants, newer facilities, revision of old school policies, ETC.)

I’ll ask my as yet unanswered question again here:
For all your do-goody “think of the children” sentimentality, how many of you actually contribute to charities that offer assistance to these people whose shoddy lots in life you champion?

There are alot of us "do-goodies"-types all around you Preechr. Our main focus (every fucking day) is to help people who are off in a poor slump. Charities, while good, aren't the key. Better education tends to mend many of these kind of problems, as people learn to help themselves, rather than to rely on others or a "system" to carry them! Even the most hard-core socialist countries ammend to promoting self-help, and they are revising their old systems to enhance that behavior in their citizens.
I'm sure you have heard the old saying "if you want to help a starving man, don't give him the fish, teach him how to fish".

Typical sentimental lefty huh?..always thinking: "how can I do it?" rather than "how do I get it?"

[UnDeath]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

UnDeath

I think the debit card thing is an interesting way to go. Hopefully it will work. When it comes to social services CA has quite possibly the worst system. Actually, I can't blame the system......I can only blame those who abuse it. It wasn't always that way tho. If it weren't for medical I probably would have died as a child. If my nana hadn't recieved the pittance she did to help raise the 3 of us we probably wouldn't have had a roof over our heads. She never took food stamps though. And she would only take the money and medical offered to her as a foster parent. She refused food stamps and anything else welfare related even though she could have used it. Instead she worked into her 70's to make sure we were comfortable. I never had designer clothes, but I also never went hungry.
My nana was and still is a proud woman. Because of her all 3 of us broke that ugly cycle. None of us are on welfare. Nor do any of us have kids. We may not be doing as financially well as we would like, but we have never taken anything that we didn't need.

I just wish more people had been able to have my nana to raise them.

this just confirms my beleifs even more. The problem is with those unwilling to accept responsibility, even for themselves. If we had more people like your nana, even to a slight degree, many of the problems we see today would just kinda stop being there.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by Carnivore

Well that's a brilliant assessment. If people were healthier, healthcare would be cheaper! Amazing.

Actually, my point is if people were more responsible for themselves, healthcare would be cheaper,

[Preechr]

I don't particularly blame "the people." I blame Harry Truman for running on "A Chicken in Every Pot," and for every scumbag that has won an election on the same premise since.

And Zosimus, you have to look at who is in charge of paying those teachers. It's not Capitalism you are mad at. Government Control of Education is a central tenet in the Communist Manifesto.

Just so you guys know, most of my arguments stem from my understanding that there are only two forms of society in the world: Capitalism and Communism, and each style of government functions to a varying degree along that axis. I'm not a right-wing not job, so don't go changing the channel just yet.

I exist solely to clear up years of misleading propaganda regarding how Capitalism actually works. It's really not near as bad as you think, generally.

For example: You, Zosimus. I think I called you a closet Capitalist once. Maybe I've yet to prove that to you, but I'm not done trying.

[The One and Only...]

UnDeath: Things like that are what those plans someone suggest are for. Also, we'd have to provide for everyone or else it wouldn't be quite fair. Of course, B.G. type people would probably hire independant specialists anyway.

Preechr: Everyone pays taxes. I believe in a flat tax rate. Hence, everyone pays for healthcare, and everyone gets it. Your extremist points are just that: way too extreme to be taken seriously. I also get the sense that your argument is based on morals rather than practicality; not a good thing in politics.

FACT: My idea that big government will solve everything does not exist. I am talking healthcare. No more, no less. And I already pointed out that I am not necessarily talking about federal govt. It could just as easily be state or local. So I suggest you stop stuffing words in my mouth.

FACT: Throwing around words like infantile and naive will not prove anything other than you must resort to insulting in order to get your point across. At least, you think you do.

FACT: Your "fact", which really sounds like an opinion, that healthcare will get more expensive is completely wrong by any accounts I've ever seen. Example: Canada. Perhaps if you had looked at the link I provided earlier, you would have noticed that Canada spends fewer GDP on healthcare than does the U.S. And guess what? Government pays for healthcare.

FACT: There is no decision to make. If it is in the healthcare guidelines, you fix it. Simple as that. Furthermore, if they don't provide it, there is a little something called a lawsuit...

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

While it is true that goverments are typically wasteful, I believe I can say that does not make up for the drive for profit in companies. Even if companies are more resourceful, I still think that the gap would be in favor of the government as far as fewer expences to the citizen. I make this judgement from facts I have seen, such as on this: http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooql_402.asp

Stop comparing us to Canada or any other country with a different form of gonerment, smaller population, or different economy.

Furthermore, since the government does it the most expensive way, healthcare would be improved. Another strong point is that economic planners from those dead insurance companies could be hired to make the process as efficent as possible.

Give me an example of that happening in the last 50 years. The government will pay higher prices for inferior service. Its how they work. Again, look at their construction projects.

I do believe I just addressed that in the above statement.

No, you just said "Despite everythingI've seen, I'm sure the government can to a complete 180 and do this right"

I'm not really sure what your point was with that statement.

That a private company driven by profits can be predicted. They do their best by making customers happy. We, unfortunatly drove healthcare prices up, not them.

Words of wisdom indeed, but it will never happen.

Ya, well, why should be be rewarded for being animals?

And even if it did, the government would either cut taxes or put the money into something else, like education.

What? Explain that to me?

[Preechr]

No insult intended. You said yourself you didn't fit the criterion for which the insult would have applied.

More explanation is probably required. I can show you how morality and practicality are not mutually exclusive, and that my wacky ideas tend to have the appropriate mix of both. Above all, I use 100% efficiency as my unattainable goal in all things, and then find various ways for dealing with the disappointment my high standards inevitably generate. Beer generally works well.

I hope you guys are on here later. I'll be back, and I'll be interested to see how this has progressed...

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Stop comparing us to Canada or any other country with a different form of gonerment, smaller population, or different economy.

With that logic, I cannot compare it to anything, in which case no points can be made for or against this. I will say that they have a fairly similar form of government and economy, and that population does not really have anything to do with my point. There is a reason why Canada is often called a copy of the U.S.

Give me an example of that happening in the last 50 years. The government will pay higher prices for inferior service. Its how they work. Again, look at their construction projects.

As this is a purely hypothetical thread, it could be assumed that the government would not act like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off - thus making the point mute. But as I am comparing to Canada, whether you personally think I cannot, I still hold it would be cheaper. I highly doubt that they are any more resourceful than us, or at least anything to support the thought. Most governments are wasteful - it's just on such a large scale that they have to be.

Perhaps that is why I mentioned we could do it with the state or local governments in charge. It is quite possible that they would be less wasteful, and we could test the process in a few small localites to see whether or not our current system is more efficent.

That a private company driven by profits can be predicted. They do their best by making customers happy. We, unfortunately drove healthcare prices up, not them.

That is irrelevant to the thread. It would still be cheaper because of no incentive for profits.

What? Explain that to me?

I don't know what you need me to explain. Suppose everyone magically started getting healthier. More money was being taken in than was needed for healthcare. As such, either taxes are cut so that no extra money is taken in, or the money is put elsewhere - like paying the budget deficit.

[El Blanco]

I will say that they have a fairly similar form of government and economy,

And you would be somnewhat wrong.

and that population does not really have anything to do with my point.

Yes it does. How do you know how much money you need if you don't know how many people to spend it on?

As this is a purely hypothetical thread, it could be assumed that the government would not act like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off - thus making the point mute. But as I am comparing to Canada, whether you personally think I cannot, I still hold it would be cheaper.

So, why not just say God should come down and cure all illness? Its just as logical as what your asking.

That is irrelevant to the thread. It would still be cheaper because of no incentive for profits.

Are you nuts? Government pays atleast 4x what the private sector does on projects, yet hardly ever gets better quality. What makes you think ealthcare would be any better?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Are you nuts? Government pays atleast 4x what the private sector does on projects, yet hardly ever gets better quality. What makes you think ealthcare would be any better?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but particularly in the health and medicine field, isn't this b/c Medicaid and Medicare programs throughout various states hold a policy of buying from the highest of the pharmeceutical company bidders...?

Were we to have a single-payer system, or socialized medicine, it would seem that this price jacking middle-man would be eliminated, no?

[El Blanco]

Yes, if the US government acts completely different from the way it has the last 60 years, things might be better. Might.

[The One and Only...]

[quote="El Blanco"]

And you would be somewhat wrong.

How so? Democracy and socialism are fairly similar, which is what I said. Not exactly the same, but they have some things in common.

Yes it does. How do you know how much money you need if you don't know how many people to spend it on?

My point was that population does not effect how well the system will work. If Canada were bigger and had a higher population, more taxes would be taken in from those people to pay for it. It's all proportional.

So, why not just say God should come down and cure all illness? Its just as logical as what your asking.

Because my main point was my second.

Are you nuts? Government pays atleast 4x what the private sector does on projects, yet hardly ever gets better quality. What makes you think ealthcare would be any better?

It's cheaper in Canada, and that's the way they do it. So unless you're going to provide me with proof that the canadian government is any more resourceful that the U.S.'s, I still hold by that argument.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The criticism needs to go beyond merely the government, though.

The reason elected officials enact such crappy policies is because these companies dump campaign contributions on them.

[El Blanco]

And people elect them and take shitty care of themselves.


Stop looking at big bad corporations to blame for the problems with healthcare. Next time, look in the mirror.

[The One and Only...]

I'm not blaming anyone for problems with the healthcare system. All I'm saying is that if we took from socialist policies on healthcare, would it not be a more efficient system?

That, and somethings are not because people take shitty care of themselves. Take the poor coal miner that get's lung disease, for example. Or the man that get's caught in the fire. I don't think you are looking at the whole picture.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

And people elect them and take shitty care of themselves.


Stop looking at big bad corporations to blame for the problems with healthcare. Next time, look in the mirror.

You yourself just agreed that government policy is flawed. Yet you somehow don't agree that there just may be a corelation between the politicians who set the standards, and the contributors who serve to benefit from their decisions.

And as for your "just take care of yourself" argument, that's all well and good for folks who live in areas that aren't next to pollutant factories, who don't work in hazardous work conditions that may lead to both physical and other ailments, for folks who simply get cancer, for no reason, although they coulda SWORE they lived a healthy lifestyle, etc.

Life is full of choices with consequences, yes. But your happy little libertarian utopia of self-sufficiency can only go so far when people need to put food on their family's table and send their kids to college.

[El Blanco]

And exactly how many people get cancer for no apperent reason?

Its one thing to go to work to feed your family and get sick from pollutants. Its completly different to choose to live a shitty lifestyle.

If people quit all the smoking etc.... healthcare would more affordable for everyone else.

[The_voice_of_reason]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

If people quit all the smoking etc.... healthcare would more affordable for everyone else.

How exactly are we supposed to do that? You are suggesting an imposibility. People will continue to drink, do drugs, and smoke tabacco. I mean for gods sake our president did coke. The only way to get people to stop smoking (or at least slow down) is to make tabbacco illegle and we all know that will never happen.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

And exactly how many people get cancer for no apperent reason?

Its one thing to go to work to feed your family and get sick from pollutants. Its completly different to choose to live a shitty lifestyle.

If people quit all the smoking etc.... healthcare would more affordable for everyone else.

I never suggested people would get cancer for no apparent reason. Where did this comment come from?

[theapportioner]

Blanco: A huge amount of health care expense comes from end of life care, and healthy and responsible or not, we all will experience the end of life.

[ranxer]

El Corpo are you suggesting that business is doing the right thing when they drop billions of dollars into polititians pockets? you are blaming the victims for the problems we face.. i dont think that's ever fair.. as if the people are organized enough or have the time it takes to get the corporations out of government. you think most people have the time it takes to investigate then, publicize, and follow up on corporate corruption??! damn! people are stupid and pathetic so they deserve what they get right?

id like to know how you all justify the fact that American health care is the most expensive(has the most profits etc) in the WORLD and yet covers the least number of people compared to all other '1st world' nations??!

im with rudy: http://dc.indymedia.org/ramgen/assic...owshoefilms.rm

the whole treat it when its an emergency situation is a huge problem.. preventative coverages would save a Ton of money.