Universal Health Care

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1


edit: Oh and BTW if you did your research, of the 41 million uninsured in this country, approx 30% are income earners over $75000 and voluntarily have no healthcare. Once again you skew facts and cry fire.

Nice! That means that there are ~13 million people in this country who's personal plan for healthcare is specifically to deal with what they can directly and if the tab get's too high to stick it to everyone else anyway. Nice ethic of 'personal responsibiltiy':roll:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of that 45 million are people like me who don't have healthcare because they choose not to pay for it.

PJ is one of them.

So you believe health care should be REQUIRED? yay socialism! If they need expensive healthcare and they DO have insurance. They pay 10% or whatever their plan provides. Who do you think pays the rest? Thats right. Everyone else in the pool. Thus, insurance is expensive. Your logic is narrow.

 

[BoomerD]

Personally, I like the idea of Universal Health Care for basic health care. If you get sick and need to see a doctor...it's covered. If you break a bone...it's covered. Need surgery for medical purposes...it's covered. Elective/cosmetic surgery is out of your pocket, as would be any non-medical procedures/office visits.

There's something wrong when people in a country like ours can't afford to go to the doctor when they need to. That's part of the cause of people using the emergency room as their primary-care physicians, then they don't/can't pay...which adds to the overall costs of everyone else, and drives many emergency rooms to close.

I'd also support the idea of tiered health care...basic care is free, 2nd-tier which covered non-emergency medical care at a reasonable price, and even 3rd tier that covered everything including elective surgery/doctor visits at an extra premium.

In a system where only the rich can afford medical care, the poor/middle-class suffer.

BASIC Health care should NOT be a privilege...it should be a RIGHT!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Personally, I like the idea of Universal Health Care for basic health care. If you get sick and need to see a doctor...it's covered. If you break a bone...it's covered. Need surgery for medical purposes...it's covered. Elective/cosmetic surgery is out of your pocket, as would be any non-medical procedures/office visits.

There's something wrong when people in a country like ours can't afford to go to the doctor when they need to. That's part of the cause of people using the emergency room as their primary-care physicians, then they don't/can't pay...which adds to the overall costs of everyone else, and drives many emergency rooms to close.

I'd also support the idea of tiered health care...basic care is free, 2nd-tier which covered non-emergency medical care at a reasonable price, and even 3rd tier that covered everything including elective surgery/doctor visits at an extra premium.

In a system where only the rich can afford medical care, the poor/middle-class suffer.

BASIC Health care should NOT be a privilege...it should be a RIGHT!

FYI the part I bolded is already availble to anyone without health insurance. Most of the time these would consititute an emergency, and ER's dont turn away patients for not having insurance. The public pays the tab.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

My solution is like many, including on this board.

Let the government negotiate for lower drug costs.

Money buys more and better things. Period.

If you want a better life, quit whining about how someone should give it to you.

MAKE your own life. UHC wont change this a bit.

Wow, so many American hating statements in one breathe.

Your buds are the one's that took "negotiations" out of drug costs.

Well thanks for at least being honest about the rich deserve to live while all other eat sh!t and die mentality even if it means you hate all Americans except the rich.

Its not that black and white Dave.

The richer you are the better life you have. Whats your problem with that? It has nothing to do with hating Americans, it has to do with reality. Something you know nothing about.

Yes it was "black & white" for the better part of 225 Years until your ilk took over control with an agenda for destroying this Country and continuing to destroy it.

No one has had a problem with the rich until they impinge on ordinary American's rights.

It happened in the 1880's which led to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

It happened with the 1929 Crash and it is happening again now.

You will clearly be on the wrong side of the fence once enough Americans are personally negatively affected (which more are everyday as evidenced by the Americans without insurance number for example) and rise up against you ilk.

First of all, I'm curious who my "ilk" are.

Second of all, as usual and not suprising, you dont have a frigging clue what your talking about. How about something you know nothing about: facts

Given the rudimentary state of medical technology before 1920, most people had very low medical expenditures. A 1918 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of 211 families living in Columbus, Ohio found that only 7.6 of their average annual medical expenditures paid for hospital care (Ohio Report, p. 116). In fact, the chief cost associated with illness was not the cost of medical care, but rather the fact that sick people couldn't work and didn't get paid. A 1919 State of Illinois study reported that lost wages due to sickness were four times larger than the medical expenditures associated with treating the illness (State of Illinois, pp. 15-17). As a result, most people felt they didn't need health insurance. Instead, households purchased "sickness" insurance -- similar to today's "disability" insurance -- to provide income replacement in the event of illness

The fact that people generally felt actual health insurance (as opposed to sickness insurance) was unnecessary prior to 1920 also helped to defeat proposals for compulsory, nationalized health insurance in the same period. Although many European nations had adopted some form of compulsory, nationalized health insurance by 1920, proposals sponsored by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) to enact compulsory health insurance in several states were never enacted (see Numbers 1978).

Also from that paper, Blue Cross and Blue Shield were the first real health insurers as we know them today. That was in mid 1930's, and was designed to reduce price competition among hospitals (Blue Cross) and for doctors and providers to protect themselves from competition with Blue Cross, as well as to provide an alternative to compulsory insurance (Blue Shield)

You have no idea what youre talking about Dave. You just throw shit against the wall to see what sticks. Even a blind dog finds a bone now and then.

edit: Oh and BTW if you did your research, of the 41 million uninsured in this country, approx 30% are income earners over $75000 and voluntarily have no healthcare. Once again you skew facts and cry fire.

Awesome spin and dodge.

How much you getting paid by the GOP again?

 

[blackangst1]

Awesome spin and dodge.

How much you getting paid by the GOP again?

Typical answer when youre proven wrong. Youre a coward.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1


edit: Oh and BTW if you did your research, of the 41 million uninsured in this country, approx 30% are income earners over $75000 and voluntarily have no healthcare. Once again you skew facts and cry fire.

Nice! That means that there are ~13 million people in this country who's personal plan for healthcare is specifically to deal with what they can directly and if the tab get's too high to stick it to everyone else anyway. Nice ethic of 'personal responsibiltiy':roll:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of that 45 million are people like me who don't have healthcare because they choose not to pay for it.

PJ is one of them.

So you believe health care should be REQUIRED? yay socialism! If they need expensive healthcare and they DO have insurance. They pay 10% or whatever their plan provides. Who do you think pays the rest? Thats right. Everyone else in the pool. Thus, insurance is expensive. Your logic is narrow.

If my logic is narrow, your knee-jerk reasoning is little more than a dot.
First of all, requiring insurance is hardly the same thing as socialism (e.g. Germany is not a socialist country). Secondly the whole point of insurance is to exchange risk for money; risk != certianty.
Finally gaming the system such that your own failure requires a bail-out is the worst of capitalism.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1


edit: Oh and BTW if you did your research, of the 41 million uninsured in this country, approx 30% are income earners over $75000 and voluntarily have no healthcare. Once again you skew facts and cry fire.

Nice! That means that there are ~13 million people in this country who's personal plan for healthcare is specifically to deal with what they can directly and if the tab get's too high to stick it to everyone else anyway. Nice ethic of 'personal responsibiltiy':roll:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of that 45 million are people like me who don't have healthcare because they choose not to pay for it.

PJ is one of them.

So you believe health care should be REQUIRED? yay socialism! If they need expensive healthcare and they DO have insurance. They pay 10% or whatever their plan provides. Who do you think pays the rest? Thats right. Everyone else in the pool. Thus, insurance is expensive. Your logic is narrow.

If my logic is narrow, your knee-jerk reasoning is little more than a dot.
First of all, requiring insurance is hardly the same thing as socialism (e.g. Germany is not a socialist country). Secondly the whole point of insurance is to exchange risk for money; risk != certianty.
Finally gaming the system such that your own failure requires a bail-out is the worst of capitalism.

We can debate what socialism is and isnt, but thats another thread. Anytime the government decides what I do or dont need is, IMO, one step sloser to socialism. Anyhow.

You are of course correct when you say the whole point of insurance is to exchange risk for money; risk != certianty. Your logic is narrow because there are alot of people who simply dont need healthcare for a good chuck of their life, or are self insured. Again, lets use the example of a 27 year old who mysteriously has a heart attack. There are many sources for costs associated with a heart attack, but I chose this one. "Your minimum heart attack cost for this overall experience will be about $45,000 - $50,000! If the Coronary Angioplasty procedure cannot correct your heart problem, and open heart surgery is needed, your overall heart attack cost could more than double!" So, lets say best case 45k. Lets also assume he has a great insurance plan at work and pays 200/mo. That is equivelant to 225 months worth of premiums, or nearly 19 years. Obviously he hasnt worked that long. So pays the tab? Thats right. It comes out of the insurance pool. Lets say he doesnt have insurance. Who pays? Tax payers. Either way he gets treatment he doesnt have to pay for, and someone else pays the bill. All insurance is is a pool (basically). When the COST of the pool exceeds the PRICE, premiums increase. What is it you dont understand?

As you say its exchanging risk for money. Arent you doing the same if you arent insured and are healthy?

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1


edit: Oh and BTW if you did your research, of the 41 million uninsured in this country, approx 30% are income earners over $75000 and voluntarily have no healthcare. Once again you skew facts and cry fire.

Nice! That means that there are ~13 million people in this country who's personal plan for healthcare is specifically to deal with what they can directly and if the tab get's too high to stick it to everyone else anyway. Nice ethic of 'personal responsibiltiy':roll:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of that 45 million are people like me who don't have healthcare because they choose not to pay for it.

PJ is one of them.

So you believe health care should be REQUIRED? yay socialism! If they need expensive healthcare and they DO have insurance. They pay 10% or whatever their plan provides. Who do you think pays the rest? Thats right. Everyone else in the pool. Thus, insurance is expensive. Your logic is narrow.

If my logic is narrow, your knee-jerk reasoning is little more than a dot.
First of all, requiring insurance is hardly the same thing as socialism (e.g. Germany is not a socialist country). Secondly the whole point of insurance is to exchange risk for money; risk != certianty.
Finally gaming the system such that your own failure requires a bail-out is the worst of capitalism.

We can debate what socialism is and isnt, but thats another thread. Anytime the government decides what I do or dont need is, IMO, one step sloser to socialism. Anyhow.

You are of course correct when you say the whole point of insurance is to exchange risk for money; risk != certianty. Your logic is narrow because there are alot of people who simply dont need healthcare for a good chuck of their life, or are self insured. Again, lets use the example of a 27 year old who mysteriously has a heart attack. There are many sources for costs associated with a heart attack, but I chose this one. "Your minimum heart attack cost for this overall experience will be about $45,000 - $50,000! If the Coronary Angioplasty procedure cannot correct your heart problem, and open heart surgery is needed, your overall heart attack cost could more than double!" So, lets say best case 45k. Lets also assume he has a great insurance plan at work and pays 200/mo. That is equivelant to 225 months worth of premiums, or nearly 19 years. Obviously he hasnt worked that long. So pays the tab? Thats right. It comes out of the insurance pool. Lets say he doesnt have insurance. Who pays? Tax payers. Either way he gets treatment he doesnt have to pay for, and someone else pays the bill. All insurance is is a pool (basically). When the COST of the pool exceeds the PRICE, premiums increase. What is it you dont understand?

As you say its exchanging risk for money. Arent you doing the same if you arent insured and are healthy?

No. If you do not have health insurance, you are exchanging risk for no money. Go back to algebra class.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
As you say its exchanging risk for money. Arent you doing the same if you arent insured and are healthy?

No. If you do not have health insurance, you are exchanging risk for no money. Go back to algebra class.[/quote]

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1


edit: Oh and BTW if you did your research, of the 41 million uninsured in this country, approx 30% are income earners over $75000 and voluntarily have no healthcare. Once again you skew facts and cry fire.

Nice! That means that there are ~13 million people in this country who's personal plan for healthcare is specifically to deal with what they can directly and if the tab get's too high to stick it to everyone else anyway. Nice ethic of 'personal responsibiltiy':roll:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of that 45 million are people like me who don't have healthcare because they choose not to pay for it.

PJ is one of them.

So you believe health care should be REQUIRED? yay socialism! If they need expensive healthcare and they DO have insurance. They pay 10% or whatever their plan provides. Who do you think pays the rest? Thats right. Everyone else in the pool. Thus, insurance is expensive. Your logic is narrow.

If my logic is narrow, your knee-jerk reasoning is little more than a dot.
First of all, requiring insurance is hardly the same thing as socialism (e.g. Germany is not a socialist country). Secondly the whole point of insurance is to exchange risk for money; risk != certianty.
Finally gaming the system such that your own failure requires a bail-out is the worst of capitalism.

We can debate what socialism is and isnt, but thats another thread. Anytime the government decides what I do or dont need is, IMO, one step sloser to socialism. Anyhow.

You are of course correct when you say the whole point of insurance is to exchange risk for money; risk != certianty. Your logic is narrow because there are alot of people who simply dont need healthcare for a good chuck of their life, or are self insured. Again, lets use the example of a 27 year old who mysteriously has a heart attack. There are many sources for costs associated with a heart attack, but I chose this one. "Your minimum heart attack cost for this overall experience will be about $45,000 - $50,000! If the Coronary Angioplasty procedure cannot correct your heart problem, and open heart surgery is needed, your overall heart attack cost could more than double!" So, lets say best case 45k. Lets also assume he has a great insurance plan at work and pays 200/mo. That is equivelant to 225 months worth of premiums, or nearly 19 years. Obviously he hasnt worked that long. So pays the tab? Thats right. It comes out of the insurance pool. Lets say he doesnt have insurance. Who pays? Tax payers. Either way he gets treatment he doesnt have to pay for, and someone else pays the bill. All insurance is is a pool (basically). When the COST of the pool exceeds the PRICE, premiums increase. What is it you dont understand?

As you say its exchanging risk for money. Arent you doing the same if you arent insured and are healthy?

No. If you do not have health insurance, you are exchanging risk for no money. Go back to algebra class.

Do you honestly think if someone who goes to an ER and does not have insurance the hospital will not try and collect? Please. Naive much? If a person *can* pay, they will. It doesnt change the argument. The bottom line, which you fail time and time again to see, is that with or without insurance, other people pay for the big stuff. Other meaning those for whom services were not rendered. With no insurance, either the person pays, or it's paid with tax money-its the same fucking thing. OTHER people pay.

You really need to read up on self insurance. Start here. Let me give you one more example-life insurance. If a breadwinner dies, and has a family, his/her income must be replaced in order for the family to sustain their current standard of living. The general rule in life insurance is 8-10 times annual income. This will give the widow/widower about 7 years worth of income after funeral, inflation, and other various costs. Lets say he/she makes 40k/year. That means he/she needs 400k in life insurance to protect his/her family.

Now lets say he/she has 400k set aside in retirement. Why does he/she need life insurance anymore? His family will be taken care of, therefore he/she doesnt need to pay the premiums for it. He is self insured.

Get it? It's also like liability insurance on a car. Why would someone pay 700/yr for a car that can be replaced by 1k? Same idea. Read up junior and learn something.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: blackangst1


edit: Oh and BTW if you did your research, of the 41 million uninsured in this country, approx 30% are income earners over $75000 and voluntarily have no healthcare. Once again you skew facts and cry fire.

Nice! That means that there are ~13 million people in this country who's personal plan for healthcare is specifically to deal with what they can directly and if the tab get's too high to stick it to everyone else anyway. Nice ethic of 'personal responsibiltiy':roll:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of that 45 million are people like me who don't have healthcare because they choose not to pay for it.

PJ is one of them.

So you believe health care should be REQUIRED? yay socialism! If they need expensive healthcare and they DO have insurance. They pay 10% or whatever their plan provides. Who do you think pays the rest? Thats right. Everyone else in the pool. Thus, insurance is expensive. Your logic is narrow.

If my logic is narrow, your knee-jerk reasoning is little more than a dot.
First of all, requiring insurance is hardly the same thing as socialism (e.g. Germany is not a socialist country). Secondly the whole point of insurance is to exchange risk for money; risk != certianty.
Finally gaming the system such that your own failure requires a bail-out is the worst of capitalism.

We can debate what socialism is and isnt, but thats another thread. Anytime the government decides what I do or dont need is, IMO, one step sloser to socialism. Anyhow.

You are of course correct when you say the whole point of insurance is to exchange risk for money; risk != certianty. Your logic is narrow because there are alot of people who simply dont need healthcare for a good chuck of their life, or are self insured. Again, lets use the example of a 27 year old who mysteriously has a heart attack. There are many sources for costs associated with a heart attack, but I chose this one. "Your minimum heart attack cost for this overall experience will be about $45,000 - $50,000! If the Coronary Angioplasty procedure cannot correct your heart problem, and open heart surgery is needed, your overall heart attack cost could more than double!" So, lets say best case 45k. Lets also assume he has a great insurance plan at work and pays 200/mo. That is equivelant to 225 months worth of premiums, or nearly 19 years. Obviously he hasnt worked that long. So pays the tab? Thats right. It comes out of the insurance pool. Lets say he doesnt have insurance. Who pays? Tax payers. Either way he gets treatment he doesnt have to pay for, and someone else pays the bill. All insurance is is a pool (basically). When the COST of the pool exceeds the PRICE, premiums increase. What is it you dont understand?

As you say its exchanging risk for money. Arent you doing the same if you arent insured and are healthy?

No. If you do not have health insurance, you are exchanging risk for no money. Go back to algebra class.

Do you honestly think if someone who goes to an ER and does not have insurance the hospital will not try and collect? Please. Naive much? If a person *can* pay, they will. It doesnt change the argument. The bottom line, which you fail time and time again to see, is that with or without insurance, other people pay for the big stuff. Other meaning those for whom services were not rendered. With no insurance, either the person pays, or it's paid with tax money-its the same fucking thing. OTHER people pay.

You really need to read up on self insurance. Start here. Let me give you one more example-life insurance. If a breadwinner dies, and has a family, his/her income must be replaced in order for the family to sustain their current standard of living. The general rule in life insurance is 8-10 times annual income. This will give the widow/widower about 7 years worth of income after funeral, inflation, and other various costs. Lets say he/she makes 40k/year. That means he/she needs 400k in life insurance to protect his/her family.

Now lets say he/she has 400k set aside in retirement. Why does he/she need life insurance anymore? His family will be taken care of, therefore he/she doesnt need to pay the premiums for it. He is self insured.

Get it? It's also like liability insurance on a car. Why would someone pay 700/yr for a car that can be replaced by 1k? Same idea. Read up junior and learn something.

You know, at first I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt, but all you have been able to show me instead is that you are just full of crap.
Naive? I work for an insurance company, I very well understand the principle of pooled risk and when it should and should not be ignored.

If you advocate this way of covering the cost of a catastrophic health care need, the bottom line which you continue to try and run away from, is that you are asking everyone else to fund your financial irresponsibility.

Take your simple example: the guy with the overwhelming 45k in health care costs that he cannot afford. So what happens?
-He can't afford it so he declares bankruptcy
-the hostpital doesn't get paid for the services, so they have to build that into what they charge everyone else
-Insurance companies are told that medical service rates go up
-People buying insurance pay higher premiums (note this doesn't affect our guy since he intends for everyone else to pay if he has a problem)
-Depending on how the hospital is able to bill, government may have to pay some of the tab
-taxes account for your financial irresponsibility
-the irresponsible guy bitches about paying those taxes
furthermore
-in declaring bankruptcy he defaults on other debt
-companies providing that debt have to take it into consideration in new loans
-the cost to access debt goes up for everybody
-the irresponsible guy complains about how expensive debt has become

 

[blackangst1]

Dont misinterprate my words Monkey. Im not advocating we shouldnt have health insurance at all. Im simply saying not everyone needs it, and there ARE those included in the quoted 41 something million who are uninsured in that catagory. Obviously its a case by case basis, but not everyone needs health insurance. And many ARE self insured.

 

[senseamp]

Guess what, those who "don't need insurance" don't cost much to insure anyways. Also, unless you have millions of dollars, you need insurance. You can get hit by a car tomorrow and need several hundred thousand dollars worth of surgery.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Guess what, those who "don't need insurance" don't cost much to insure anyways. Also, unless you have millions of dollars, you need insurance. You can get hit by a car tomorrow and need several hundred thousand dollars worth of surgery.

ugh

Whatever man. And guess what. you could win the lottery this week too. :roll:

 

[MonkeyK]

It is true that many can afford to self-insure. I would have no problem with everyone making over a million a year (or with some demonstrably large amount in assets) not needing insurance. Otherwise, I'm paying for their risk anyway.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp
Guess what, those who "don't need insurance" don't cost much to insure anyways. Also, unless you have millions of dollars, you need insurance. You can get hit by a car tomorrow and need several hundred thousand dollars worth of surgery.

ugh

Whatever man. And guess what. you could win the lottery this week too. :roll:

Not if you don't play it. BTW, if your chances of being seriously hurt were that low, insurance would cost as much as a lottery ticket.

 

[Jamie571]

I look at my own states disastrous experiment with universal health care coverage and wonder what the hell are these people thinking with UHC.

Thank God we had a democrat governor finally disband it before it bankrupted the state.

What happened with Tenncare should be a lesson for anyone looking at UHC. People on Tenncare had an average of 7 prescriptions more than people not on Tenncare. It was abused in so many ways. It had problems with doctor shopping, prescription overuse, bankrupt hospitals, and doctors leaving the state. They were about to issue a state income tax in 2000 to cover the cost on top of the already 10% sales tax we have here. They had a huge tax revolt in Nashville the day that the legislature was scheduled to vote. I remember the only traffic that was moving was around the capitol building and they were all blowing horns. One of the pro income tax legislatures had a heart attack or something from all the suspense.

Another example that hits home is I have family in Canada. Most of them are getting up there in age. Whenever any of them want a knee replacement, cancer treatment, or any other serious surgery they call around to many of the hospitals here in the US. They negotiate a cash payment and have some Hospitals bidding against each other (they like cash!) Then usually less than a week they come down have the surgery and leave and yes they have to keep quite about it.


I'm not happy with the way the Iraq war is being handled, but I will not vote for a Dem. who is pushing UHC.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Just a thought here... but wouldn't it make more sense for the government to clean up the insurance industry, make the whole process of billing and compliance more efficient and less costly BEFORE it jumps in and starts buying into a flawed system? Y'know... fix it first then spend tax dollars on it.

Right now it sounds like "who cares what it costs or if the system is const efficient or not, it's TAX dollars... not real money"

 

[senseamp]

What exactly is your attachment to private insurance industry? Do you really think the best thing about American healthcare is the health insurance industry?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why are we even talking about the cost of drugs?
Let?s figure out how to pay for healthcare without drugs first.

We spend something along the lines of $2 trillion a year on healthcare. How is the government going to come up with another $1 trillion in tax revenue (it already spends nearly $1 trillion a year on healthcare.)

We are going to increase the size of the budget by 25% which means we have to increase taxes by 25%. That is going to kill the economy.

chiropractic

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Just a thought here... but wouldn't it make more sense for the government to clean up the insurance industry, make the whole process of billing and compliance more efficient and less costly BEFORE it jumps in and starts buying into a flawed system? Y'know... fix it first then spend tax dollars on it.

Right now it sounds like "who cares what it costs or if the system is const efficient or not, it's TAX dollars... not real money"

I like that idea also. But that isnt how the citizens of the USA want it. If they wanted different they would clean house.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs
What about the free market? How about negotiating with the drug companies and health suppliers for lower prices

You are interjecting an anti-free market entity into the equation(govt). Why does it surprise you there is little to no negotiation on drugs when the govt is involved?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Kur
While I would love to not worry about health insurance I'm really concerned about how much this is going to cost us. My main issue is pharmaceutical companies and their insane prices, we have to pull their legs to not charge us a ton of money for pills, how is this going to effect us if they are now introduced to a market of "Guaranteed money", essentially as long as people think they need it they will get ti.

Anyone?

This is one of those things nobody can explain. Unless the govt is going to absorb our pharmasuetical industry as well?

The leftists who push UHC dont realize big business is on their side because they know in the end we wont have socialized healthcare in the framework of socialism. But a facsist system where public money is funneled into private corporations. These big business's who supply the health industry cant wait to get their hands on the nearly bottomless pit of the tax payers dollar.

Most ironic is the shift in costs moves from the employer for the vast majority of people to the individual via income taxation. So much for helping the middle class. The left just pushed the cost of the system onto the middle class.

So essentially health care would operate exactly like the defense industry. I don't see too many people complaining that that system is "socialist" or "fascist", when it is EXACTLY the same thing...the government providing a service to the people, footing the entire bill and paying hundreds of billions of dollars to private industry to do it. Why does an argument that supports the DOD not work for Universal health care? Especially since UHC doesn't go nearly as far in a lot of proposals, many UHC proponents simply suggest that the government FUND health care, not RUN the entire system.

People dont complain about the defense industry because it is a role defined by the consitution of the United States. That said you will see people complaining about the costs of the military. The military isnt all that efficient but nobody is about to screw with the defense of the country. The most you will see is a small downsizing like we saw in the 1990s.

 

[dyna]

We need public treatment centers for the people that need healthcare. It should provide the most basic coverage to keep people alive that don't have insurance. They may get stuck in a room with 100 other sick people but they will live. They still get billed for treatment at reasonable rates(govt. subsidized).

Everybody else can go to hospitals that have insurance and hospitals can deny treatment except in the life threatening situations.

This system will provide incentive for people to upgrade their life to get better care and stop leeching off the government.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Hacp
You mean we overpay so we can subsidize all those television commercials that Big Pharm likes to run?

drugs that are advertised tend to cost less for a dosage than drugs that aren't advertised.

Originally posted by: senseamp
What exactly is your attachment to private insurance industry? Do you really think the best thing about American healthcare is the health insurance industry?

what is hill-dog's attachment to it?

Originally posted by: dyna
We need public treatment centers for the people that need healthcare. It should provide the most basic coverage to keep people alive that don't have insurance. They may get stuck in a room with 100 other sick people but they will live. They still get billed for treatment at reasonable rates(govt. subsidized).

Everybody else can go to hospitals that have insurance and hospitals can deny treatment except in the life threatening situations.

This system will provide incentive for people to upgrade their life to get better care and stop leeching off the government.

providing a massive government freebie has pretty much never encouraged people to get up off the pavement.