463 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

Is it for real, on 06 June 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

Hospitals will become overwhelmed, treatments become faster and sloppier, quality doctors will be underpaid and will become a thing of the past. Keep it private.
....
A government issued doctor goes to work at 8 and reviews the "emergency" situation with a bunch of bureaucrats who then decide if your 85 year old ass is worthy of a million dollar tax payer funded surgery.

But, think about it. On the bright side, the ranking for the US the WHO gives out for "Best Healthcare" would sky rocket. With lots of less educated, careless health professionals, we'll have lower costs, quicker turnaround times and... If we refuse treatment to those cursed old people, think of what will then be saved. They take up like 40% of the costs, but are like 5% of the population. (Sarcasm People)

Quote

If I had to choose a group of folks in this country who should be entitled to something it would be our service members. But it's obvious you don't understand that they are government property who by default should recieve government issued healthcare. It's also apparent that you have a typical liberal dissent towards our military, no worse, our service members. I say that because you become incensed at the notion that the our servicemen "deserve" anything over the general population. After all, it's not like they've ever done anything for you.

As a former member of the US Army I can tell you the healthcare I got in the service was 3rd rate. Sure it was free, but I lost 3 teeth in 4 years and have a scar that never healed right, and bad feet that all I got was pain pills for. Luckly that is all the negatives I got, I saw other guys that had serious injuries or ailments who were treated little better then a dog might be treated by a vet. I think it is basically because almost all the doctors, nurses and dentists are butter bar leuitenants, who just got out of college and don't know jack.

Anyway, I'm sure if it was a national program for 200 to 350 million, it would be better then what I experienced that serves 2 million people. Or... maybe not.

[Render]

Is it for real, on 06 June 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

What I was trying to convey is that Stewart used the word deserve instead of entitled. When you say someone doesn't deserve something in this particular context it comes off as cruel and insensitive. It was a smear tactic against Kristol just like the one you're using against me saying that I'm telling someone to ****off because they're not worthy. I never said that. Not even remotely close.

no Stewart just pointed out the madness in Kristols' own argument, it's hypocrisy at its finest.

Quote

I know that's your point. I disagree. Forget the mandate part for now. Once you open the emergency room flood gates to the entire population who thinks healthcare is now "free" you can forget decent service. The system will be clogged with people who have the sniffles, hypocondria, little cuts on their fingers, junkies looking for pills. Hospitals will become overwhelmed, treatments become faster and sloppier, quality doctors will be underpaid and will become a thing of the past. Keep it private. I'd rather have a good doctor decide by best road to recovery than have a government panel and 9 million regulations taking 8 months to figure out what to do with the tumor they discovered 8 months ago. Does everybody get free brain surgery, free heart transplants. kemotherapy and other high end specialty treatments with obamacare? Even if you're 85? A good doctor gets up at 3am for emergency brain surgery. A government issued doctor goes to work at 8 and reviews the "emergency" situation with a bunch of bureaucrats who then decide if your 85 year old ass is worthy of a million dollar tax payer funded surgery.
It ain't for me, pal. I'm not enetitled and don't want to be. I don't want to burden your wallet with my health issues and I don't want a law that refers to people as "units" deciding what type of treatment I'm worthy of. I'll let a highly educated private doctor do that, thank you. Don't tell me about deciding worthiness when this law takes that privelage to heart.

okay, a big chunck of text based on a fantasy here.
Do you have any knowledge of other health care systems in the world by any chance? Mainly the social health care systems. What you describe above couldn't be further from the truth.
I dno where to begin but i'll just give it a shot by starting to say everything you said above is wrong. To be more specific:
Hospitals do not get clogged with non-emergency related patients because there are also housedoctors, independent of a hospital, this is where you go for non severe things and/or a first diagnosis. There are enough countries in the world that are an example of this.
If an operation is needed or whatever medical service, you don't have to wait months for some independent board to decide, that's just not how it works. I dno where you got these fantasy thoughts.
And no ppl don't get free surgeries, that is also not the mechanism behind it. Everyone can get CHEAPER operations, yes. And i do mean EVERYONE. Not just the priviliged few.
A goverment issued doctor is also a non existent thing. Doctors are still either independent or working for a hospital and this hospital pays them. Their hours won't magically change cuz "they've got it in the bag".
The system simply doesn't work that way, it's another fantasy of yours.

Maybe you just don't have any faith in the American population and think that they'll destroy the whole system in all stupidity. I don't believe it would be so.

Quote

If I had to choose a group of folks in this country who should be entitled to something it would be our service members. But it's obvious you don't understand that they are government property who by default should recieve government issued healthcare. It's also apparent that you have a typical liberal dissent towards our military, no worse, our service members. I say that because you become incensed at the notion that the our servicemen "deserve" anything over the general population. After all, it's not like they've ever done anything for you.

Didn't you dislike Stewart for seemingly turning words on people? So why you pulling that **** with me?

I said i don't see why the general population deserves anything less than servicemen. Servicemen deserve the best of care, the general population deserves the same.

Quote

Edit:
BTW, I have never served or had a tumor. That was hypothetical.
Edit: I have no health coverage of my own so don't go accusing me of being some overprivileged out-of-touch rich guy.

You beter hope it stays hypothetical then, or the system you once so defended, will look awfully unjust to you.

Edited by Render, 07 June 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[Render]

DieChecker, on 06 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

It has also been shown that the relatively lower rating is due to inflated medical costs in the US, due to our history of litigation that has resulted in inflated medical insurance that in turn demands inflated medical prices. Taking that into consideration, the US would be in the top ten easily.

So it is a matter of a numbers game. I agree that the US needs to work on healthcare prices and on violent mortality rates, but that should not automatically mean that our Healthcare is somehow sub-par.

But there are inflated medical costs, so US is ranked lower cuz the system is not as good as another. There is no way around that.
The healtcare service may be up to par, for the lucky ones that can afford it.
The USA looks like a third world country with all the ppl who can't afford a standard of care. Frankly, it's pervers.
All the very expensive litigations are also a symptom of a to expensive health care system. When you pay a lot for your operation and something goes wrong, you're gonna sew for a whole lot more and in America you're gonna get it. And prices go up for everyone.
In a system where you pay an average amount for an operation and something went wrong you can't sew for as much because you haven't paid as much in the first place, and to correct the mistake won't cost as much either. So everyone won't have to pay extra for one person their complication.

Doesn't it seem wiser to choose a system that makes healthcare cheaper for EVERYONE over a system that makes everything more expensive for everyone, so a lot fall out of the boat?

DieChecker, on 07 June 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Why is it that everyone is Entitled to healthcare? Is it because we need it for to be at our best. Well, then don't we also need transportation, housing and income? Is there such a thing as the Right to a Job, the Right to Public Transport, the right to Individual Housing? No there is not. Just as there is no Right to Healthcare. It is a Privilage in the US. Sorry, but it is. Go live in Sweden if you don't like it much.

Well yes, i guess this is one of problems America struggles with. Ppl have been taught they are not entitled to standard of care, or a minimum income, or a minimum in housing.
It sounds crazy to me. It's like Americans have a problem with empathy. Maybe cuz they're all so frustrated that everything is so expensive and the stress of not losing your job , cuz once you fall in America there is no net to catch you and you stay down. It just sounds ridiculous when it could be different.
Life is hard enough as it is, there is no need to make it more difficult for your fellow man while the burden could be made a lil lighter.

Quote

It is not a basic human right to be healthy.

Im sorry, this sounds crazy to me. If you can be helped it is a basic human right you will be.
A big part of the US population just seems very arrogant. "If one person is able to pay the ridiculous prices of healthcare than everyone should be able to." This just isn't how the world works and it's one the reasons why the USA is currently ranked so low and why other countries looking at the US give news reports that America looks like a third world country with all the homeless, sick ppl.

It just seems to make more sense to give everyone a cheaper chance to get help, instead of just the wealthier ppl who keep making it more expensive as they go along.
If the government would give some extra financial help to someone in need (and it's not up to anyone apart from doctors to decide in what degree this need can be) then the dirty word "socialism" comes up. Like it's a bad thing, Im guessing the word "socialism" maybe sounds bad if you have a lack of understanding in the subject.
But when the government helps out banks then this is what? Good socialism? Just common sense?

Edited by Render, 07 June 2012 - 08:48 AM.

[Render]

One in four Americans without health coverage: study

Reuters) - As the U.S. Supreme Court ponders the fate of healthcare reform in the current election year, a study released on Thursday shows that one in four working-age Americans went without insurance at some point in 2011, often as a result of unemployment and other job changes.


The study by the Commonwealth Fund polled 2,100 people aged 19 to 64 and found that 26 percent of non-elderly adults went without insurance -- a percentage that researchers said equals about 48 million people when measured against U.S. Census data.
The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit organization that analyzes healthcare issues, said that seven in 10 of those who lost insurance spent a year or more without coverage, partly because plans sold on the individual market for health insurance were unaffordable.
Without insurance, people quickly disconnected from the healthcare system by avoiding basic medical services such as doctor visits and screenings for cancer, cholesterol and high blood pressure.
The results provide a disturbing snapshot of the $2.6 trillion U.S. healthcare system at a time when government officials are wrestling with stubbornly high unemployment rates and uncertainty about the future of the federal healthcare overhaul.
President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would seek to close gaps in health insurance beginning in 2014 by extending coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans, either through subsidized state insurance markets or an expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor.
But the law could be overturned by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds before the end of June. It also faces repeated calls for repeal from Republican candidates running in this year's election campaign.
The Commonwealth Fund said more than 40 percent of those who lost insurance had been covered by employer-sponsored plans. Another 18 percent were dropped from Medicaid rolls, while 27 percent had never been insured.
The results have a 3 percentage point margin of error.
Conducted online from June 24 to July 5, 2011, the survey reflected continuing effects from economic recession.
Study author Sara Collins said gaps in health coverage, particularly in the individual and small group markets, are longstanding problems likely to continue as the economy grows.
Employer-provided insurance is a main pillar of the U.S. healthcare market, covering the healthcare needs of about 150 million non-elderly people. But employer coverage has become increasingly expensive in recent years, prompting many companies to reduce benefits or raise costs for their workers.
http://www.reuters.c...E83I17420120419

A lil side-thought here:
Ppl fail to go for preventive checks because it is too expensive. This ultimately leads to more diseases that are harder or no longer possible to heal. Read: more expensive or simply too expensive to treat.
This AGAIN leads to more expensive healthcare bills.

[and then]

I have no statistics to back up my points here.  But it is my contention that if very stringent caps on malpractice awards were put into effect the level of litigation in such cases would fall dramatically and this would actually serve to drive down overall costs.  Other steps to help would be limiting reimbursements for high expense testing like MRI,PET and some Lab tests.  We have grown accustomed to the idea that almost ANYTHING can be cured if the right testing and treatment are used.  Problem is those tests and treatments are not an economically sound way to do medicine.  If Doctors could do their work without fear of being sued into bankruptcy due to a single mistake then medicine could be done FAR more cost effectively.  Would mistakes happen with horrible outcomes? Yes.  And probably more often than they do now.  But guess what?  Medicine is a human science and is subject to mistakes just as all other things human,are.  It's a question of the greatest good being done for the largest number of people.

[lightly]

Personally,  i can't think of a a single thing more important to "The General Welfare"  (well being)  of people than health care.    Isn't that one of the main goals of government according to the U.S.  constitution..  "general welfare" ?
   How that might have or may be accomplished  is another question.

  I don't see business subsidies  or  war profiteering mentioned in the constitution.

[Rafterman]

So in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the Administration wasted two years crafting something that isn't even legal.

Talk about gross incompetence.

Funny how such a fantastic piece of legislation is hardly being mentioned by the President's campaign.

[Tiggs]

Rafterman, on 07 June 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

So in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the Administration wasted two years crafting something that isn't even legal.

It's legal until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

[Corp]

Is it for real, on 06 June 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

Once you open the emergency room flood gates to the entire population who thinks healthcare is now "free" you can forget decent service. The system will be clogged with people who have the sniffles, hypocondria, little cuts on their fingers, junkies looking for pills. Hospitals will become overwhelmed, treatments become faster and sloppier, quality doctors will be underpaid and will become a thing of the past. Keep it private. I'd rather have a good doctor decide by best road to recovery than have a government panel and 9 million regulations taking 8 months to figure out what to do with the tumor they discovered 8 months ago. Does everybody get free brain surgery, free heart transplants. kemotherapy and other high end specialty treatments with obamacare? Even if you're 85? A good doctor gets up at 3am for emergency brain surgery. A government issued doctor goes to work at 8 and reviews the "emergency" situation with a bunch of bureaucrats who then decide if your 85 year old ass is worthy of a million dollar tax payer funded surgery.
It ain't for me, pal. I'm not enetitled and don't want to be. I don't want to burden your wallet with my health issues and I don't want a law that refers to people as "units" deciding what type of treatment I'm worthy of. I'll let a highly educated private doctor do that, thank you. Don't tell me about deciding worthiness when this law takes that privelage to heart.

The rest of the Western World disagrees with you. And it's this kind of outlook that makes us wonder why Americans are so weird sometimes.

[ethanhawke33]

Just a few questions and the results are quite interesting, I had never heard of Gary Johnson before 5 minutes ago...
http://www.isidewith...l-election-quiz

[RavenHawk]

Render, on 06 June 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Every person IS entitled to healthcare, from the moment you're born you should be able to get proper care. That's the whole freaking point.

Which one is it?  ‘Every person born is entitled to it’ or ‘one should be able to get proper care’?  That’s two different things.  I can tell you that no one is entitled to anything except our GOD given, inalienable rights.  Healthcare is not one of them.  Among them are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Others are Free Speech and the right to Bear Arms, etc.  These things we do not require anyone else to get them from.  Now, working to acquire healthcare with our own two hands would fulfill Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The bottom line is that if someone has to give you something then it really isn’t a Right and the government is not in the business to give out Entitlements.  A government giving Entitlements is another form of slavery.  The government is to protect the people, not enslave them.

Quote

There's no reason to say why anyone deserves it more than another. Claiming that cuz you went in the army you deserve the best of care, but if you're 12 and a genious ready to formulate the theory of everything, but you tragically become ill and your parents can't afford your medical bills you should just **** off cuz you're simply not as worthy ?

It’s never been a matter of who deserves it more than another but who can acquire it.  Those who can, do but they shouldn’t be made into being the villain and they shouldn’t be setup to take from.  Going into the military is different.  The government is obligated to provide for you.  As a citizen, the government is only required to give you the five charges.  The rest is up to us.

To Establish Justice
To Insure Domestic Tranquility
To Provide for the Common Defense
To Promote the General Welfare
To Secure the Blessings of Liberty

There is no “To Provide Healthcare” on that list.  “PROMOTE” the General Welfare does not mean to provide welfare.  It means to promote an environment to benefit the general welfare of all.  That doesn’t mean to force everyone to buy insurance.  That would be a true free market system patterned after Adam Smith.  It’s no accident of Providence that “Wealth of Nations” was published in 1776.  Our Founding Fathers where quite well versed in his works.  Obama follows Marx and Alinski.

[RavenHawk]

Render, on 07 June 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

    One in four Americans without health coverage: study

    Reuters) - As the U.S. Supreme Court ponders the fate of healthcare reform in the current election year, a study released on Thursday shows that one in four working-age Americans went without insurance at some point in 2011, often as a result of unemployment and other job changes.
    

The study by the Commonwealth Fund polled 2,100 people aged 19 to 64 and found that 26 percent of non-elderly adults went without insurance -- a percentage that researchers said equals about 48 million people when measured against U.S. Census data.

So your lead is dishonest.  All Americans are not between the ages of 19 to 64.  So it isn’t 1/4th of Americans.  The number that the Dems had been using was 30million Americans are without coverage.  That number included the Wealthy that don’t need it and the young that don’t want it.  And some were trying to pad those numbers with the estimated 20 million illegals that are not entitled to coverage anyway.  So in the 19 to 64 range, what was the elderly cutoff?  Older Americans are more likely to have insurance because they have worked long enough to command a salary that allows them to purchase it.  They are also more likely to need it more.

Quote

The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit organization that analyzes healthcare issues, said that seven in 10 of those who lost insurance spent a year or more without coverage, partly because plans sold on the individual market for health insurance were unaffordable.

When unemployment is at about 4%, which we had under Bush prior to the 110th Congress being seated, the average time out of work was just a few months.  But that is why there is COBRA.  Yes it is expensive, but when it was made law under Reagan, it wasn’t meant to extend coverage for many months.  It was just a stopgap measure to cover the transition between jobs in a healthy economy.  Having coverage without a job does sound a bit anti Capitalist.

Quote

Without insurance, people quickly disconnected from the healthcare system by avoiding basic medical services such as doctor visits and screenings for cancer, cholesterol and high blood pressure.
The results provide a disturbing snapshot of the $2.6 trillion U.S. healthcare system at a time when government officials are wrestling with stubbornly high unemployment rates and uncertainty about the future of the federal healthcare overhaul.

This is a bad situation but it’ll be a far better one than what is happening in Europe.  Without austerity, Europe is going to collapse.  The solution for high unemployment is jobs.  Once jobs are being created, there is no need for government run healthcare.  People will be making enough money to attain it on their own.

Quote

President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would seek to close gaps in health insurance beginning in 2014 by extending coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans, either through subsidized state insurance markets or an expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor.

The intent may be to close gaps, but the bureaucracy in the 4000+ pages of regulations will make our healthcare worse than Europe is right now.  In practice, Obamacare will end up setting up Death Panels and Rationing.  It’s all in the 2700 page document.  This is not something I want to end up in the position of saying “I told you so”, if this law is fully implemented.

Quote

But the law could be overturned by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds before the end of June. It also faces repeated calls for repeal from Republican candidates running in this year's election campaign.

If it is ruled unConstitutional then maybe this just wasn’t such a great idea in the first place.  This is what puts America above all others because it is run by the rule of law based on individual freedoms.  Not on good Socialist ideas.

Quote

Study author Sara Collins said gaps in health coverage, particularly in the individual and small group markets, are longstanding problems likely to continue as the economy grows.

Actually, it’ll be less of a problem as the economy grows but that’s not what we have to be concerned about.  We need to prepare for the next recession.  By scraping Obamacare and enact many of the Republican ideas (that had been expunged from Obamacare), we could easily establish the best healthcare model on the planet.

Quote

Employer-provided insurance is a main pillar of the U.S. healthcare market, covering the healthcare needs of about 150 million non-elderly people. But employer coverage has become increasingly expensive in recent years, prompting many companies to reduce benefits or raise costs for their workers.

With the Baby Boomers getting older, that is definitely going to present problems.  If Obamacare is upheld, it will create a great burden on the younger generations.  Plus, the BBs will probably live longer than the younger generations, adding more burdens.  But at least the BBs will be healthier than generations on either side.  Surely we can solve this problem without redistributing the wealth of the wealthy or some cross between “Logan’s Run” and “Soylent Green”.

One of the main reasons that costs are going up is because the insurance companies are anticipating Obamacare remaining a law.  Thanks Dems!  What is needed is competition, not government control or pseudo monopolies.

Quote

A lil side-thought here:
Ppl fail to go for preventive checks because it is too expensive. This ultimately leads to more diseases that are harder or no longer possible to heal. Read: more expensive or simply too expensive to treat.
This AGAIN leads to more expensive healthcare bills.

It’s not so much as testing is getting more expensive, it’s the bureaucratic hoops they have to go through and the long waits with increased costs.  What will really increase healthcare costs will be Obamacare trying to deal with the increase in auto immune type diseases.  This is an epidemic just waiting on the horizon and Obamacare is not designed to handle that.

[RavenHawk]

Post to come...

Edited by RavenHawk, 07 June 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[Rafterman]

Tiggs, on 07 June 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

It's legal until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

Give it another week.  Everyone sees the writing on the wall.

[Tiggs]

Rafterman, on 07 June 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Give it another week.  Everyone sees the writing on the wall.

Last time I checked, Everyone wasn't a Supreme Court Judge.