That's a great idea too, I like it. It would certainly clean up law enforcement at the very least.Originally posted by: Antisocial Virge
It also brings up your other point about not having anything socialized, what about police and fire?
That's a great idea too, I like it. It would certainly clean up law enforcement at the very least.Originally posted by: Antisocial Virge
It also brings up your other point about not having anything socialized, what about police and fire?
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Haven't seen it, but if it suggests USA should adopt a social health care system, I piss on it. Subsidized possibly, but if you were being careless with your finances, got cancer and had no money to pay for treatment, sucks for you, I wouldn't give you a quarter. In some ways the system works, stupid people should die.</end quote></div>
I hope you never get sick, because your statement is just plain naive.
It's not just stupid irresponsible people getting bankrupted by medical bills.
</end quote></div>
This is why I said subsidized, where the treatment is covered partially if high in cost, this allows the free market to function in medical advancements as people are still required to make choices as to which treatment to pursue, unlike a socialistic method of being forced onto a range of treatments that have been preselected, unless you would rather pay for the entire thing yourself, the subsidies would also be restricted to people that don't have poor credit history. So even if you don't have the funds, perhaps of a young age and have not yet had the opportunity to develop savings, you will be subsidized, but you are still required to pay your share of the cost. If you don't have the money, you must take it on credit. If you have bad credit and cannot take it on credit, you will die. It's sad, but that's personal responsibility for you. Of course you can always get health insurance. Socialist healthcare is a close equivalent to forced health insurance, with additional drawbacks. In the current system you have a choice, sucks for you if you don't make the right one.
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I'd rather take forced health insurance than forced death just because I don't happen to have a large enough credit line to pay for some high dollar cancer treatment.
</end quote></div>
Would you prefer that insurance companies would allow you to obtain insurance after you get sick? If you don't want to die, get health insurance. Nobody is forcing you not to have insurance, but nobody is going to rescue you when you're dying because of a lack of it.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>
What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Government is responsible to us, the voters.
Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>
What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>
Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Government is responsible to us, the voters.</end quote></div>
The last 8 years have shown how true that is.
Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>
What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>
Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>
Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Haven't seen it, but if it suggests USA should adopt a social health care system, I piss on it. Subsidized possibly, but if you were being careless with your finances, got cancer and had no money to pay for treatment, sucks for you, I wouldn't give you a quarter. In some ways the system works, stupid people should die.
Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>
What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>
Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>
Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.</end quote></div>
You can solve it tomorrow. Put caps on what the government pays for drugs and services.
</end quote></div>
Wrong. That wouldnt even solve 1/4 of the problem. And it would only create more.
Medicad already has caps on what it paysfor medical care. This is why a good deal of hospitals go bankrup each year.
Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>
What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>
Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>
Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.</end quote></div>
You can solve it tomorrow. Put caps on what the government pays for drugs and services.
</end quote></div>
Wrong. That wouldnt even solve 1/4 of the problem. And it would only create more.
Medicad already has caps on what it paysfor medical care. This is why a good deal of hospitals go bankrup each year.</end quote></div>
No it isn't. They go bankrupt because people with NO insurance use the ERs when they are really sick because they don't get preventative care.
Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>
What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>
Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>
Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.</end quote></div>
You can solve it tomorrow. Put caps on what the government pays for drugs and services.
</end quote></div>
Wrong. That wouldnt even solve 1/4 of the problem. And it would only create more.
Medicad already has caps on what it paysfor medical care. This is why a good deal of hospitals go bankrup each year.</end quote></div>
No it isn't. They go bankrupt because people with NO insurance use the ERs when they are really sick because they don't get preventative care.
Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>
What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>
Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>
Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.</end quote></div>
You can solve it tomorrow. Put caps on what the government pays for drugs and services.
</end quote></div>
Wrong. That wouldnt even solve 1/4 of the problem. And it would only create more.
Medicad already has caps on what it paysfor medical care. This is why a good deal of hospitals go bankrup each year.</end quote></div>
No it isn't. They go bankrupt because people with NO insurance use the ERs when they are really sick because they don't get preventative care.</end quote></div>
ER visits cost most hospitals relatively little.
Its the elderly patients that spend weeks and sometimes months in the hospital on the governments dime that cost them huge amounts of money.
The government doesn't cover the cost of most procedures. Nor do they cover the costs of hospital stays or surgerys.
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Haven't seen it, but if it suggests USA should adopt a social health care system, I piss on it. Subsidized possibly, but if you were being careless with your finances, got cancer and had no money to pay for treatment, sucks for you, I wouldn't give you a quarter. In some ways the system works, stupid people should die.