Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6887
I've been thinking, if the government pays for people's health care, then won't people be able to save money as they wouldn't have to pay for insurance or if they don't have insurance break the bank paying for medical bills?

And couldn't the money those people saved be put back into the economy? Also is National Health care covers preventive medicine then people would be getting sick less often, which is another good thing.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6413|Truthistan
Did you know that when the US and Canada were negotiating the Free Trade agreement and NAFTA that the US was claiming that the Canadian health system gave Canada an unfair economic advantage and wanted Canada to get rid of it.

Universal health is more efficient and provides everyone with health care.

If Universal health care were implimented the losers would be insurance companies (who cares about those A$$holes), Wall street (no more health care stocks and who cares about those A$$holes), HMOs and some really greedy doctors who think of themselves as business men and not as healers (and who cares about those A$$holes)

The way I see it, the Republicans have always had a scorched earth policy against any group that supports democrats whether its unions or trial lawyers. And since insurance companies, wall street, HMOs and doctors have alligned themselves with the Republicans I could see some payback coming to those groups if the democrats get in both congress and the whitehouse.

Besides even big business like GM, Ford and other companies would like to have health care shifted to the government.
Miggle
FUCK UBISOFT
+1,411|7161|FUCK UBISOFT

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Did you know that when the US and Canada were negotiating the Free Trade agreement and NAFTA that the US was claiming that the Canadian health system gave Canada an unfair economic advantage and wanted Canada to get rid of it.

Universal health is more efficient and provides everyone with health care.

If Universal health care were implimented the losers would be insurance companies (who cares about those A$$holes), Wall street (no more health care stocks and who cares about those A$$holes), HMOs and some really greedy doctors who think of themselves as business men and not as healers (and who cares about those A$$holes)

The way I see it, the Republicans have always had a scorched earth policy against any group that supports democrats whether its unions or trial lawyers. And since insurance companies, wall street, HMOs and doctors have alligned themselves with the Republicans I could see some payback coming to those groups if the democrats get in both congress and the whitehouse.

Besides even big business like GM, Ford and other companies would like to have health care shifted to the government.
What happens to all those "A$$holes" jobs?
https://i.imgur.com/86fodNE.png
imortal
Member
+240|7084|Austin, TX

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

I've been thinking, if the government pays for people's health care, then won't people be able to save money as they wouldn't have to pay for insurance or if they don't have insurance break the bank paying for medical bills?

And couldn't the money those people saved be put back into the economy? Also is National Health care covers preventive medicine then people would be getting sick less often, which is another good thing.
"The Government" does not pay for anything.  Any money the Government spends comes directly out of my paycheck.  The biggest issue is that I will lose more money as taxes to pay for this boondoggle than I will get in return in the form of health care.
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|7112
The number one problem with socialized medicine and welfare:
If we give to those who don't have much, what incentive do they have to rise above federal/state handouts?

We wouldn't switch to such a plan over night. It would have to come after a couple of decades of changing the way the nation spends and consumes.

Last edited by Superior Mind (2008-09-04 18:17:46)

Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6413|Truthistan

Superior Mind wrote:

The number one problem with socialized medicine and welfare:
If we give to those who don't have much, what incentive do they have to rise above federal/state handouts?
If it were a universal health care system there wouldn't be anything to rise out of, everyone would be covered the same. besides there are plenty of other incentives to work.

The number one problem with the health care system in the US right now is that it is a false market that is only created by the withdrawal of supply from the poor, the sick and the old.

There are People who can't afford to get treatment or insurance and there are other people who get sick and insurance cuts them off or declares them to be uninsurable, why? because it would cut into their profits.

Profits are made off of sickness. It is the governments job to protect people from the negative effects of the market and since the health care market profits from sickness the government has an obligation to change it. The incentive effect of withholding health care is far out weighed by the harm caused to people from the withholding of health care service.

Health care should not be marketized.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

SgtHeihn wrote:

Where would the money come from for this National Health Care System?
The states, just like it does now.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6906|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

Kmarion wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

Where would the money come from for this National Health Care System?
The states, just like it does now.
Funny Kam, you know what I mean.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

SgtHeihn wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

Where would the money come from for this National Health Care System?
The states, just like it does now.
Funny Kam, you know what I mean.
It wasn't a joke. Do you know how much we are spending now?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6968|San Diego, CA, USA

m3thod wrote:

Defence.
Good idea...we can then have the Canadian military take over our country and the install their great medical system. 

Just too bad so many of them come here to actually get their healthcare...
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6906|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)
the budget for '07 was 2.3 trillion, I just can't see the US going for a universal heath care that eats half the budget and raises taxes.

I don't think the current government(all of it) could even handle it. Now don't get me wrong, it is a great thought but money talks and bullshit walks, and who has the most money? Drug companies, insurance companies, etc. People are crazy if they don't think their loving senators and Representative don't get kick backs.

Biden's house
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/72996610_zpid

one of McCain's
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03691.html

Obama's
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/42182/

Kinda big for the government salaries.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/52/36960035.pdf

https://i37.tinypic.com/2lu2jus.jpg

https://i35.tinypic.com/or1dhh.jpg

We've got to get the cost under control.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6906|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

Kmarion wrote:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/52/36960035.pdf

http://i37.tinypic.com/2lu2jus.jpg

http://i35.tinypic.com/or1dhh.jpg

We've got to get the cost under control.
I concur, I got mine from wiki. I just don't see the Government being able to step up and handle it. They are too busy bashing each other.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6572|what

Kmarion wrote:

We've got to get the cost under control.
Cost? That's representative of the US without universal health care. Maybe the cost will drop once you have a working system (one can hope, anyway).
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

SgtHeihn wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/52/36960035.pdf

http://i37.tinypic.com/2lu2jus.jpg

http://i35.tinypic.com/or1dhh.jpg

We've got to get the cost under control.
I concur, I got mine from wiki. I just don't see the Government being able to step up and handle it. They are too busy bashing each other.
On a national level no way. There is just too much room for bureaucratic exploitation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
SgtHeihn
Should have ducked
+394|6906|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

We've got to get the cost under control.
Cost? That's representative of the US without universal health care. Maybe the cost will drop once you have a working system (one can hope, anyway).
The big business wont let their money trough go. I went to the hospital because I was sick as a dog and could barley breathe, I didn't have my VA health card yet so the hospital charged me and I sent the bill to them(VA) The total was well over $17k. Most hospitals here in the US are privately owned, the owners wont want to give up that kind of money for a Federal set rate.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

Cost is also providing motivation for ambition and excellence. It's a double edged sword.

Seriously, how many foreign doctors have you ran across in the states? It seems like every other one has got an accent of some sort .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6572|what

SgtHeihn wrote:

The big business wont let their money trough go. I went to the hospital because I was sick as a dog and could barley breathe, I didn't have my VA health card yet so the hospital charged me and I sent the bill to them(VA) The total was well over $17k. Most hospitals here in the US are privately owned, the owners wont want to give up that kind of money for a Federal set rate.
Well the idea of universal health care falls down before it begins then. If your running that many private hospitals, to the point they are a majority, the tax money isn't going to go back into the system. It will, as you alluded too, end up in the pockets of the big business owners.

It's not a good idea to have competing health care providers. Lowering costs to attract customers inevitably ends up lowering standards.

The main point of a universal health care system is that the prices are fairly even (and in most cases better than private insurance) and the bulk of the cost is paid for by the tax payer.

The system in Australia allows for totally free doctor visits, and consultations for example. Paid for by the ordinary tax payer, but it's the sick and needy who now don't have to worry about paying a doctor just to look at them.

If you want to see an expert private health insurance doctor, they will charge you in addition to the annual fee your paying them anyway.

Ironically, if it's just for a visit, most private health insurance owners will visit a general GP because it is free.

Because it's tax money going towards the doctors and hospitals, it can be regulated, balanced and adjusted where necessary by the state and federal Governments.

When a hospital has a drop in standards, there's usually the blame game played by either state or federal, but sufficient tax payer money is usually injected soon after.

There's pros and cons and it's unfortunate Americans haven't been able to enjoy such benefits.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

Competition drives performance. That is an indisputable fact of life. This is the primary reason the United States leads the world in technology.We've also got a lot of medical assistance available through state and local channels (Sounds somewhat similar to yours). Getting them to run more effectively is where we need to start our reform.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7126|67.222.138.85

Kmarion wrote:

Competition drives performance. That is an indisputable fact of life. This is the primary reason the United States leads the world in technology.
Bad example. We drop huge chunks of change for those advancements, often in a very non-competitive way. Better example of how competition could drive performance in the area of high tech.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6705

Kmarion wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/52/36960035.pdf

http://i37.tinypic.com/2lu2jus.jpg

http://i35.tinypic.com/or1dhh.jpg

We've got to get the cost under control.
I concur, I got mine from wiki. I just don't see the Government being able to step up and handle it. They are too busy bashing each other.
On a national level no way. There is just too much room for bureaucratic exploitation.
Medicare and medicaid have greatly cheaper admin costs than the private sector in the US.

Here's a link to a study of what's going on in current US healthcare. It's several pages, but makes for an interesting if worrying read:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie … rvey_x.htm
Sixty-two percent of those struggling to pay medical bills have health insurance, underscoring how increasing premiums, deductibles and gaps in coverage are affecting families.

"The cost of health care is going up much faster than people's wages," says Drew Altman of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan research group not affiliated with the Kaiser medical group. "Families are paying about (on average) $1,000 more now just for health care premiums than they were five years ago."

Surprisingly, costs are less of a problem for the elderly, most of whom are covered by Medicare, even though it has seen a 71% increase in monthly premiums since 2000. The survey found that the elderly were far less likely than those under 65 to have skipped treatments or drugs or to have reported that they did not have enough money for medical care.

"The underlying health care costs are not going to go down," says Glenn Melnick, a researcher at Rand, a Santa Monica, Calif.-based think tank. "They will continue to grow annually in the 8%-to-10% range for as far as we can see.
by 2017 the US healthcare costs are expected to be around 19-20 % GDP.

US healthcare costs are not only twice that of most OECD countries, but every year that gap increases. The increase in US is approximately double the inflation rate and with stagnant inflation adjusted wages in the US.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|7000|the dank(super) side of Oregon
What's worse?  A bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor?  Or a Profit seeking shareholder standing between you and your doctor?

Healthcare costs are the primary cause of bankruptcy in the richest nation in the world.  What's wrong with this picture?

Last edited by Reciprocity (2008-09-05 00:50:09)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

PureFodder wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:


I concur, I got mine from wiki. I just don't see the Government being able to step up and handle it. They are too busy bashing each other.
On a national level no way. There is just too much room for bureaucratic exploitation.
Medicare and medicaid have greatly cheaper admin costs than the private sector in the US.

Here's a link to a study of what's going on in current US healthcare. It's several pages, but makes for an interesting if worrying read:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie … rvey_x.htm
Sixty-two percent of those struggling to pay medical bills have health insurance, underscoring how increasing premiums, deductibles and gaps in coverage are affecting families.

"The cost of health care is going up much faster than people's wages," says Drew Altman of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan research group not affiliated with the Kaiser medical group. "Families are paying about (on average) $1,000 more now just for health care premiums than they were five years ago."

Surprisingly, costs are less of a problem for the elderly, most of whom are covered by Medicare, even though it has seen a 71% increase in monthly premiums since 2000. The survey found that the elderly were far less likely than those under 65 to have skipped treatments or drugs or to have reported that they did not have enough money for medical care.

"The underlying health care costs are not going to go down," says Glenn Melnick, a researcher at Rand, a Santa Monica, Calif.-based think tank. "They will continue to grow annually in the 8%-to-10% range for as far as we can see.
by 2017 the US healthcare costs are expected to be around 19-20 % GDP.

US healthcare costs are not only twice that of most OECD countries, but every year that gap increases. The increase in US is approximately double the inflation rate and with stagnant inflation adjusted wages in the US.

Kmarion wrote:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/52/36960035.pdf

http://i37.tinypic.com/2lu2jus.jpg

http://i35.tinypic.com/or1dhh.jpg

We've got to get the cost under control.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7020|132 and Bush

Reciprocity wrote:

What's worse?  A bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor?  Or a Profit seeking shareholder standing between you and your doctor?

Healthcare costs are the primary cause of bankruptcy in the richest nation in the world.  What's wrong with this picture?
Both are standing between you and your doctor. Europes bureaucracy does not compare with ours.. at all. Why in the hell would I put my health care in the hands of the worlds most inept and unproductive government in the world (federal debt, national debt, social security, etc)? If Europe can do it for them then have a ball. As a citizen of this country I can tell you that I have absolutely no confidence in Washington making this work.

Edit: I thought I was quoting PF .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
BVC
Member
+325|7115
If the state expects its citizens to be pressed into service in times of need (natural disaster, war etc) then the state has a responsibility, both economic and moral, to keep its citizens in the best state of health possible, for the best state of health enables the most efficient execution of the state's demands.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard