The American "Healthcare" thread

[Arrian]

The real issue is that people who currently have decent health insurance (I'll use that term loosely: lots of people who are insured probably haven't had any major health issues yet and thus THINK their coverage is good w/o really knowing if it is) fear that, in order to cover everyone, their quality of care will decline.

To me, that's the angle of attack the GOP should press as they try to kill reform.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

I tell you what, oerdy, YOU sign up for that health plan. Leave me my choices in the free market. I promise I'll attend your funeral and weep genuine tears after the government decides you have lived long enough and shouldn't get any care at all. But you'll still be the stupid one. Sorry.

Countries by life expectancy

1. Macau
14. Canada.
42 Bosnia and Herzegovina
45. USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

[DaShi]

They don't make it past 1 in Macau? I guess they are completely dependent on tourism afterall.

[tinyp3nis]

Nope, change is good. We just prefer change that makes sense and will work, rather than idiotic pie-in-the-sky change that will starve the most inventive health care research in the world...

How do we know that? Third of the research is already done by the government and the criticism of corporate research is that it is profit oriented. If they already have treatment to sustain people with certain problems why would they invent something cheap that would out destroy the disease freeing the patient of their own more expensive lifetime long treatments? How about all the "new" medicine that are basicly same pills with new names and sligthly different stuff in them... sometimes they work a bit better sometimes bit worse, but they increase the amount sold, they need research to make those too.
So if their profits aren't as massive as they have been suddenly the most inventive (what are they inventing?) health care research in the world is starving? When the government invents something the private sector gets it cheaply but their ads obviously won't mention it was not their research.

[Whoha]

If they already have treatment to sustain people with certain problems why would they invent something cheap that would out destroy the disease freeing the patient of their own more expensive lifetime long treatments?

Competition.

[zakubandit]

See Az you did the same thing as was done before. Saying that socialized medicine is right and just accept it. I do not want any government involvement in health care, well no I would like regulations, but not for them to be deciding for us. Besides, the health care bill is being used as a guise to throw all sorts of excess crap at us. For example, government funded abortions...seriously, they need to stop. Abortion is the decision of the mother, of course, but to give them money from tax payers to fund it is wrong. For all that are against abortion it is wrong, and for those that are for abortion its stupid. Abortion, same as gay marriage, should be left to the individual to decide and the government should not decide if it is right or wrong. I support government funded abortions on incest, rape, or in dire medical emergencies, but not for little 15 year old Lucy who didn't use a condom with Johnny, or get birth control from mommy. She screwed up, let her figure it out on her own, don't give her money to abort if that is what she wants to do.

I am all for everyone being healthy, but I am not for having my tax dollars pay for it. The point I make with opposition is that my tax dollars that get taken away from me regardless should be used for benefiting programs, not for a program that many don't use. The prime users of the system are going to be lower class, under privledged, jobless, poor, illegal legals *the ones who manage to get really good doctored papers*, etc. I haven't had to use my medical in years, though I am in need of 2 screws removed from my thumb, a chest x-ray and possible work, and I have a spot in my back that gives me constant pain...but I do not need the government to pay for it, I can manage myself. America is not about handing everything to people.

[KrazyHorse]

Another genius post

[zakubandit]

Considering the scope of Obama's massive proposal for health care overhaul, shouldn't we be considering how the vast majority of Americans will be affected, as opposed to just a small minority? (And, even a smaller minority than is often suggested?) Indeed, isn't it the number of insured Americans that should matter, since they are the ones whose medical coverage is about to drastically change for good?

This number, the number of insured Americans, is not an easy figure to find. Just try Googling it and you'll navigate through a frustrating labyrinth of dead ends, most of which lead you directly back to that uninsured "45 million" number. Eventually I had to ask the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Census Bureau to get an answer.

It turns out that 253.4 million Americans -- or a whopping 83% of the country -- have health insurance, whether it's through private insurers, employer-based coverage, a government program or Medicaid/Medicare. The majority, 202 million of the 253.4 million, pay for private insurance.

And as a number of clever skeptics have recently pointed out, breaking down the 45 million number reveals that far fewer folks are actually uninsured. Nearly 10 million of those 45 million aren't even American citizens, and nearly 17 million of them can easily afford insurance, but choose not to get it (these folks will be taxed under Obamacare for opting out.) When the numbers are crunched, it turns out that only 11 million legal American citizens who would like health insurance don't have it, and even that figure is likely high. If we take it at 11 million, that's less than 4% of the country.

Now, it's important that we get health care to those 4%, of course. But is it really necessary to rip apart the health care system we currently have to do it? Yes, we all want better coverage that's more affordable and easier to navigate. Obamacare doesn't solve any of these. All it does is help less than 4% of the country get health insurance, while putting the rest of us through a tangled maze of bureaucracy, for worse care that costs just as much, maybe more. The long-term effects are even more frightening, but in the short term do we really want to penalize the many in favor of the (very) few?

Hmm...throwing numbers around...yup, seems like non-citizens would be taken into account. And then the people who just don't care. Oh yea and add the ones who can't afford it...OH so it is a lot lower than 45Mil.
http:
//www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/se-cupp-obama-healthcare/

And let me guess...because it's Fox it isn't valid? MSNBC is left, Fox is center-right we won't agree, but here it is anyways.

[zakubandit]

Considering the scope of Obama's massive proposal for health care overhaul, shouldn't we be considering how the vast majority of Americans will be affected, as opposed to just a small minority? (And, even a smaller minority than is often suggested?) Indeed, isn't it the number of insured Americans that should matter, since they are the ones whose medical coverage is about to drastically change for good?

This number, the number of insured Americans, is not an easy figure to find. Just try Googling it and you'll navigate through a frustrating labyrinth of dead ends, most of which lead you directly back to that uninsured "45 million" number. Eventually I had to ask the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Census Bureau to get an answer.

It turns out that 253.4 million Americans -- or a whopping 83% of the country -- have health insurance, whether it's through private insurers, employer-based coverage, a government program or Medicaid/Medicare. The majority, 202 million of the 253.4 million, pay for private insurance.

And as a number of clever skeptics have recently pointed out, breaking down the 45 million number reveals that far fewer folks are actually uninsured. Nearly 10 million of those 45 million aren't even American citizens, and nearly 17 million of them can easily afford insurance, but choose not to get it (these folks will be taxed under Obamacare for opting out.) When the numbers are crunched, it turns out that only 11 million legal American citizens who would like health insurance don't have it, and even that figure is likely high. If we take it at 11 million, that's less than 4% of the country.

Now, it's important that we get health care to those 4%, of course. But is it really necessary to rip apart the health care system we currently have to do it? Yes, we all want better coverage that's more affordable and easier to navigate. Obamacare doesn't solve any of these. All it does is help less than 4% of the country get health insurance, while putting the rest of us through a tangled maze of bureaucracy, for worse care that costs just as much, maybe more. The long-term effects are even more frightening, but in the short term do we really want to penalize the many in favor of the (very) few?

Hmm...throwing numbers around...yup, seems like non-citizens would be taken into account. And then the people who just don't care. Oh yea and add the ones who can't afford it...OH so it is a lot lower than 45Mil.
http:
//www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/se-cupp-obama-healthcare/

And let me guess...because it's Fox it isn't valid? MSNBC is left, Fox is center-right we won't agree, but here it is anyways.

[ricketyclik]

Countries by life expectancy

1. Macau

11. Australia. (Another socialised medicine country). (With strict gun control ).

14. Canada.
42 Bosnia and Herzegovina
45. USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy

[Az]

Hoping you're trolling here as evidenced by walls of text

I can really go two ways about it. I'll try the civil way.

See Az you did the same thing as was done before. Saying that socialized medicine is right and just accept it. I do not want any government involvement in health care, well no I would like regulations, but not for them to be deciding for us.

Who is this "them" and "us"? How accountable is your current medical provider to you, most probably paid by your employer in the current scheme? Do you know statistics of denial of medical treatment to "insured americans"? Do you really want to be taken care of by the same organizations who are first and foremost interested in cutting costs on your medical bills?

Besides, the health care bill is being used as a guise to throw all sorts of excess crap at us. For example, government funded abortions...seriously, they need to stop. Abortion is the decision of the mother, of course, but to give them money from tax payers to fund it is wrong. For all that are against abortion it is wrong, and for those that are for abortion its stupid. Abortion, same as gay marriage, should be left to the individual to decide and the government should not decide if it is right or wrong. I support government funded abortions on incest, rape, or in dire medical emergencies, but not for little 15 year old Lucy who didn't use a condom with Johnny, or get birth control from mommy. She screwed up, let her figure it out on her own, don't give her money to abort if that is what she wants to do.

Noice. 15 year old Lucy is now considered an adult that has to just deal with the consequences of her actions. You are literally putting a huge hurdle in a teen-ager's life for having sex while being a teen ager.( Could throw another additional story about how this hypothetical is the blame of piss-poor "abstinence as contraceptive" sex-ed... but I won't )

I am all for everyone being healthy, but I am not for having my tax dollars pay for it. The point I make with opposition is that my tax dollars that get taken away from me regardless should be used for benefiting programs, not for a program that many don't use. The prime users of the system are going to be lower class, under privledged, jobless, poor, illegal legals *the ones who manage to get really good doctored papers*, etc. I haven't had to use my medical in years, though I am in need of 2 screws removed from my thumb, a chest x-ray and possible work, and I have a spot in my back that gives me constant pain...but I do not need the government to pay for it, I can manage myself. America is not about handing everything to people.

America is about browns dying, it seems. "America" is what about the people of America decide it to be - and it seems like you either comletely insane ( you would rather pay more for healthcare, so that brown people won't get it), or extremely rich and selfish ( mind about paying a little bit more in taxes for healthcare)

[zakubandit]

Them is the government, us is the people
I have a different sort of medical coverage right now since I work for a Chinese company. There is a clinic that I can go to and the company will pay the charge if it is a regular cold, flu, whatever, or if it is work related (during work time) injury. If I need something taken care of I go to a clinic or hospital here and pay directly out of pocket, no insurance involved. Hell I even have to pay the ambulance if I have to be taken to the hospital.
I am far far far from rich, and it isn't about browns. My wife's family are Mexican and Nicaraguan, they are all legal and have the same medical as everyone else; employer supplied, medicare for the grandmas, or they pay for it themselves. Her mother has none because her mother doesn't work (her mother is a waste of live, drug addict and I can't stand her. She is the worst mooch ever).
Like you said America is what Americans decide it to be...or what the government decides it to be. Americans are split, half want the government insurance program, others don't. We both have valid arguments, I just agree with the fact that government shouldn't compete with civilian companies. The government can create all sorts of regulations, restrictions, and taxes to sink civilian companies and monopolize the program. I do not agree with paying taxes to keep other people healthy, I'm sorry but I don't. I have to pay out of my own pocket for healthcare, that is my option here, but in the US it is my choice to have or not have health care. I know the risks, I know the reprecusions, I know that I should have an insurance program. It is not affordable under the current situation, but I do not want to be fined for not having insurance because that is just ridiculous, and I do not want a government hand out. Infant care is different, obviously, but I am an adult and I can make my own choices and I have to be responsible myself. The government shouldn't be telling me either get insurance, get fined, or get it from us. Since when did we allow the government to dictate our lives like that? When did we get so totalitarian that we let them micromanage us?

[Kuciwalker]

Who is this "them" and "us"? How accountable is your current medical provider to you, most probably paid by your employer in the current scheme? Do you know statistics of denial of medical treatment to "insured americans"? Do you really want to be taken care of by the same organizations who are first and foremost interested in cutting costs on your medical bills?

Would I, personally, be better off if the organization providing me no-marginal-cost medical care didn't care about costs? Sure. Do I want that to be how healthcare works? HELL NO. Because cost SHOULD be a factor in the choice of medical care.

[Az]

Americans.....

Since when did we allow the government to dictate our lives like that? When did we get so totalitarian that we let them micromanage us?

What's so ****ing totalitarian about that? It's an efficient system that works worldwide. Much better than yours. They are not micromanaging you any more than they are micromanaging you in what are you fighting ( with your money), or what kind of education are your children getting. How is that an intrusion into your privacy?

Who is this "them" and "us"? How accountable is your current medical provider to you, most probably paid by your employer in the current scheme? Do you know statistics of denial of medical treatment to "insured americans"? Do you really want to be taken care of by the same organizations who are first and foremost interested in cutting costs on your medical bills?

Would I, personally, be better off if the organization providing me no-marginal-cost medical care didn't care about costs? Sure. Do I want that to be how healthcare works? HELL NO. Because cost SHOULD be a factor in the choice of medical care.

And it is a factor. But it's based on a pre-planned budget - There is no incentive to deny you medical care. Noone will profit from it. There are clear-cut regulations about what kind of care the government system will give you. Others, it won't ( and then you are free to purchase an additional insurance whatthe**** ever covering these extreme cases)

Currently, the medical industry in the US is more than happy to deny you medical treatment. Many people just give up on getting what they are ensured for. There is an entire group of lawyers dealing with those claims.

http://insurance.lawyers.com/Appealing-Health-Insurance-Denials.html

why do you need to pay fine salaries to all of these people who are basically carving out ditches and filling them out for no use, if there is a superior model?

[zakubandit]

When the government of the people TELLS the people that you either do this or I take your money, that is not a republic. Laws protecting peace, property, and well being are not the same as regulatory laws dictating how people with use their finances to ensure they and their families are healthy. Where does it end? Fines if you decide not to get dental coverage? Fines if you decide not to purchase certain types of products because they aren't "green" enough? The "efficient" model that is used around the world has plenty of flaws and complaints coming from it. It reeks of fallacies and corruption, and with American politicians involved you can assure that corruption will be just the same or double.