A lot of good responses in this debate. Just to make note of the guy on fox news a bit more who probably regrets going on there now.
A Tory MEP who attacked the NHS on US TV, saying he "wouldn't wish it on anyone", has been rebuked by the party.
It said Daniel Hannan had done the NHS a "disservice" by giving Americans "such a negative and partial view".
The Twitter campaign has attracted more than a million followers and thousands of messages of support - including tweets from Sarah Brown, who wrote welovetheNHS "more than words can say", Health Secretary Andy Burnham and former deputy prime minister John Prescott.
Re-read, I was asking for clarification on Vig's post. I was stating what I thought he said, hoping he would restate it so I understood him better. Fox is definitely conservative.
As for his foreign policy, if you disagree with the war in Iraq, that's fine. And if it makes you step away from this thread, I guess that's fine too.
There is no liberal or conservative media. They are two side of the same coin promoting sensationalism. MSNBC, FOX, CNN and corporate entity is about getting eye count for the advertisement revenue to up their bottom line. The point is none of them truly stand out for attempting true investigative journalism. Who wants that when they can hear simple viewpoints and fearmongering?
In short, Im quite tired of the attempting to call the media liberal in general in attempts as to somehow make what it reports less significant. It has less significance, but instead on the idea of making reports as said sensational.
So I am for public news via indimedia, BBC, NPR, Pacifica.
"t's funny how Obama said in a speech the other day that AARP was indorcing his healthcare reform. Yet the AARP said they are in no way indorcing him. Get your facts straight Mr. President."
Yeh that's a really good example as to why I'm leery about getting into arguments with people about this. I get focused on telling people that they are morons for thinking Obama is going to kill their Grammy (I am in no way sarcastic, that is what Okies think will happen). I begin to miss important things like the point you just made.
I'm off to read more and argue less,
"As for his foreign policy, if you disagree with the war in Iraq, that's fine. And if it makes you step away from this thread, I guess that's fine too."
I'd be required to use a lot of strong language to explain my feelings on that subject. And I really don't want to offend anyone here because I respect the community too much. Check me out on 4chan or digg sometime if you want to have a trolling contest.
Dolemite, read my first post and tell me what limitations the bill puts in place that would prevent the government from rationing health care to senior citizens. Read it slow, line by line. Maybe even read the bill?
I have never seen any of my friend or family go without the treatment they need to have and this includes my Grandmother who needed (and survived) a triple bypass at the age of 80 and my father who has MS and needs so much medication he rattles when you shake him.
I think the British are on to a winner...
Its basically goes like this.
If you dont work (unemployed/long term sick/disabled etc.) its free
If you earn less the £650 per week you pay 11% of your wage as National insurance
If you earn more than £650 per week you pay 12% of your wage as National insurance
If you are self employed you pay 8% unless you earn more than £650 in which case you will pay 9%
Those were the figures the last time i checked :P
As for drugs you basically pay £7 per prescription if you are working full time and don't have a permanent ailment (such as diabetes).
How much does a triple bypass and all the drugs you need for recovery cost again in the states?
Can you clarify what your saying? From this I got:
"Fox news is liberal
BBC is liberal (?)
Liberals are sensationalists, whether they are Dem or Rep
They are scared to show too much tit
Is the above correct?"
You mentioned the liberal media, and I was just wondering what liberal media you were refering to in America as I don't see one at all. American tv journalism isn't much better than the build-up before a WWE fight (i.e. not to be taken seriously), and television in America in general is conservative in what it will and will not allow to be shown on the air.
I would consider the BBC very relaxed in it's restrictions on what it will and will not show on tv - hence liberal.
I don't subscribe to the 'Liberal Jew-run Media' conspriacy is what I'm saying. I DO subscribe to the 'house divided will fall' conspiracy where citizens are confused, misdirected, and goaded into arguing w/ one another while their pockets are picked by those in power.
See-->
"There is no liberal or conservative media. They are two side of the same coin promoting sensationalism."
Let me explain this to you: (Not addressing you Spider, you posted right before me)
As the pressure mounts on the system naturally, which will happen over time, it's going to strain the budget. It is projected that 87 million Americans are going to migrate to the federal plan. That's going to put a massive burden on the system! When the system is burdened, the only way to cut cost is to ration health care. Fact: Healthy people bring no burden to the health care system. You can't cut cost for them because they are healthy. So you cut cost on the people who are needing care. And the only way to cut cost, under this plan, is to ration health care.
Dolemite, read my first post and tell me what limitations the bill puts in place that would prevent the government from rationing health care to senior citizens. Read it slow, line by line. Maybe even read the bill?
Well the bills aren't final, they're just on hold until they get back from their break. So they're still a work in progress. Congress is writing the bill, not really Obama. Clinton tried that, it died.
The white house is pushing for reform but what that is and how it looks is up to a lot of really old men and a few wrinkly women all of whom we voted for, to represent our interests. Hopefully they take that job seriously and craft our future responsibly.
I've always payed out of pocket for health care. Doesn't bother me really that people that cant afford at least some basic catastrophic care don't get coverage.
That said I want some reform for those of us that can pay the basics but will get dropped like bitches if we get something nasty.
I've always had my employer pay for health care that covers everything. Doesn't bother me really that people who can pay the basics themselves get dropped like bitches if they get something nasty.
See how that works? If you won't help the people worse off than you, you can't expect assistance from the people better off than you. Someone's taxes have to pay for the reform you want, and it it's not going to be the folks on welfare.
I've always had my employer pay for health care that covers everything. Doesn't bother me really that people who can pay the basics themselves get dropped like bitches if they get something nasty.
See how that works?
yeah catastrophic care is a crock of shit man. of course you dont care cause your a calous asshat.
Edited for clarity, but my point stands. You know what the difference is between you when you get cancer and a guy who loses his job and employer-provided insurance when he gets cancer? Not a goddamn thing. Why should I pay to save your ass and not his, just because you didn't have the misfortune of getting laid off?
Either you take care of everyone or you change nothing. Looking out for yourself, in your specific situation, is the selfish bullshit that got us here in the first place.
I think that if everyone were to find themselves in a situation where they lost their job and healthcare, then got sick, and couldn't get healthcare because of pre-existing conditions, then there wouldn't be anything to argue about. If every single one of the lawmakers on capital hill lost their health insurance, and their wives or children were stricken with something drastically expensive to treat, and they were unable to afford it, then i'm sure they wouldn't stop untill a bill was passed.
Shit would get done.
Problem with American politics is that the most people with the money who are way better off really don't give a shit about people who don't have that much money. They seem to be completely apathetic.
What we need is a general sense of empathy. It is seriously lacking in this country, as well as the rest of the world. We need poeple in power who understand the blight of poverty and have felt the sting of desperation and helplessness in order to fix it.
We currently have around 60 million people in the UK and like i mentioned in my previous post, my Grandmother had a triple bypass at 80.
If we can do it, so can the USA
The NHS has a budget of around £102/$168 Billion per year (6% GDP) so if the USA used the same formula it would come out to around $884 Billion (if my maths are right :P) which would be more than enough to care for everyone who needed it 3 or 4 times over.
I just hope you guys can get some sort of a consensus and sort things out before too long
We currently have around 60 million people in the UK and like i mentioned in my previous post, my Grandmother had a triple bypass at 80.
If we can do it, so can the USA
The NHS has a budget of around £102/$168 Billion per year (6% GDP) so if the USA used the same formula it would come out to around $884 Billion (if my maths are right :P) which would be more than enough to care for everyone who needed it 3 or 4 times over.
I just hope you guys can get some sort of a consensus and sort things out before too long
but but but, we need to spend $1trillion a year on important stuff like destabalizing governments
Canadian here, And like anyone else here who doesn't live in the states I really don't get the hate for this. Seems like a pretty big no brainer.
I try and stay away from american political debates cause it always just seems it boils down to people just calling each other liberal/conservative as if this backs up their point.
I really don't think americans know what liberal / socialist / communist is. Our Conservative party is prob %100 more liberal than the most liberal american and no one here goes on about commies.
I don't know whats up with the US but man their is some deep rooted hate down there and I just don't understand it. For being one of the most patriotic countries people really dont' get along with each other.
Anyone got any stats on what the average person pays per month for health care insurance in the states? I'm interested in how it compares to how much I pay in taxes.
A good compus for this is to see where Sarah Palin stands on the issue..if you fall into the same lot...your most likely an idiot...I'm sure there are support groups or something you can attend
As for drugs you basically pay £7 per prescription if you are working full time and don't have a permanent ailment (such as diabetes).
It's down to £4 per prescription now in Scotland, and my eye medicine now comes in a 3 month batch. So I pay my 12% each month and £16 a year to not go blind.
It's down to £4 per prescription now in Scotland, and my eye medicine now comes in a 3 month batch. So I pay my 12% each month and £16 a year to not go blind.
Plus they're trying to make it free aswell. Students get everything free here, good times.
I've always had my employer pay for health care that covers everything. Doesn't bother me really that people who can pay the basics themselves get dropped like bitches if they get something nasty.
See how that works? If you won't help the people worse off than you, you can't expect assistance from the people better off than you. Someone's taxes have to pay for the reform you want, and it it's not going to be the folks on welfare.
I do not understand this argument. It's a classic case of people's greed blinding them to the real costs.
If everyone who works pays a percentage of their pay it will cost less for you than if everyone pays a fixed amount. This is because the percentage will favour anyone not earning large amounts. I doubt anyone here earns millions a year.
Also if everyone has healthcare then there's something called "economy of scale" that kicks in and helps to make it cheaper. Some things are just better if they're done on a huge scale.
I do not understand this argument. It's a classic case of people's greed blinding them to the real costs.
If everyone who works pays a percentage of their pay it will cost less for you than if everyone pays a fixed amount. This is because the percentage will favour anyone not earning large amounts. I doubt anyone here earns millions a year.
Also if everyone has healthcare then there's something called "economy of scale" that kicks in and helps to make it cheaper. Some things are just better if they're done on a huge scale.
You don't understand what I'm saying or what IronHawk's request was about?
I don't think economy of scale applies to much of the health care business. Goods might be cheaper, but I can't see a hospital running a discount on heart surgeries because they're doing so many of them.
I don't think economy of scale applies to much of the health care business. Goods might be cheaper, but I can't see a hospital running a discount on heart surgeries because they're doing so many of them.
Why are clinics cheaper? Why do companies like kaiser permanente cluster their health services into centers?
If you have five doctors and they all have their own practise they'll need 1 receptionist per practise. That's 5 receptionists and half the time they're probably not doing anything. If you put the same five doctors in a clinic they'll only need to pay for one receptionist. The same thing may apply for other services those doctors might need like laundry.
Why do you think the private health insurance companies waste so much money on administration? it's because each insurer has their own administration apparatus which is duplicated for every one of them.
Wait a minute, you're talking something completely different. Universal health care means everyone gets coverage. Universal health care doesn't mean the federal government forces independent doctors to close and merge into group clinics. Socialized financing can have some success in America, we already have a history of that, but socialized employment? Family physicians forced to close their practices or surgeons forced to work in hospitals of the government's choosing? There's no way that happens. That kind of reform bill would never see the floor in Congress.
Health care reform, when it finally arrives, won't replace the option for individual private practice. Universal health insurance may pay for your treatment with that doctor, whole or in part, but I can't see any significant structural changes to the nuts and bolts of American medical practice.
*edit*
To follow this a bit, I'm not saying clinics don't have a place and all. Obviously, they're all over the place in any US city. But that's a decision made by the individual doctors, and will remain so. The savings you're describing already exist, if a given physician is interested in it - if he doesn't want to pay a receptionist entirely out of his own profits, he's free to join a group of like-minded docs and share the bill. But that whole issue is independent of who provides the insurance and foots the bill for services.
Wait a minute, you're talking something completely different. Universal health care means everyone gets coverage. Universal health care doesn't mean the federal government forces independent doctors to close and merge into group clinics. Socialized financing can have some success in America, we already have a history of that, but socialized employment? Family physicians forced to close their practices or surgeons forced to work in hospitals of the government's choosing? There's no way that happens. That kind of reform bill would never see the floor in Congress.
You wouldn't have to force anything. People could still go to their old doctors. They'd just have the choice to go to a cheaper government backed clinic. You could even reimburse them for a set amount based on how much they pay the government employed doctors. Really good doctors would be worth paying extra for.
Strangely this is the way it works in australia. You can go to a private doctor and pay a bit of extra money. Or you can go to a government clinic or hospital and not pay anything (bulk billing). It hasn't put any good doctors out of business and you will always be able to get medical care.
You wouldn't have to force anything. People could still go to their old doctors. They'd just have the choice to go to a cheaper government backed clinic. You could even reimburse them for a set amount based on how much they pay the government employed doctors. Really good doctors would be worth paying extra for.
Strangely this is the way it works in australia. You can go to a private doctor and pay a bit of extra money. Or you can go to a government clinic or hospital and not pay anything (bulk billing). It hasn't put any good doctors out of business and you will always be able to get medical care.
Okay, but how is this different than what's already going on in America? I believe most doctors are partners in clinics. My dentist is a solo act, but every doctor I can remember going to in the last ten years or whatever has been part of a clinic group. The only way health care would get cheaper "in bulk" is if you had some enticement to get doctors to form more and larger clinics than they already occupy. What would encourage doctors to do that anymore than they already are?
I see from the edits that you sort of agree with me... I think.
Either way the point I was addressing was a very common counterargument in this sort of debate.
Err... I think so too. Mostly. That works for me The insurance system we both seem to be thinking about is sort of like a health voucher. Let's say it's good for $1000 worth of appendix surgery, and you can redeem it any way you like. Government sponsored clinics conveniently charge $1000 to remove an appendix; if you want to shop elsewhere and pay higher prices, you still get the $1000 in federal insurance and make up the difference out of your pocket or whatever. Is that what you're thinking?
Edited for clarity, but my point stands. You know what the difference is between you when you get cancer and a guy who loses his job and employer-provided insurance when he gets cancer? Not a goddamn thing. Why should I pay to save your ass and not his, just because you didn't have the misfortune of getting laid off?
Either you take care of everyone or you change nothing. Looking out for yourself, in your specific situation, is the selfish bullshit that got us here in the first place.
lol.. with your logic slavery is moral.
Fuck man I'm glad your not my friend. you have no sense of unity , compassion or just being someone that I would trust to have my back in a tough situation.
You could come back just say your being a realist however its just an excuse for not giving a fuck about people.
Here is what i love about the current system, that this is legal.
So you pay $XXX an month every month for years just in case you need some help later. You ask nothing in return in the mean time other than the reassurance that you will get the help you need it. Then when your time of need comes your informed that you can't be helped as the cause of your needs might predate your first payment.
The idea of insurance is that its a pile of money that everyone that adds to it can can take money out of when they need it. So a the bigger the pile the safer everyone who adds to it is that when they need help they can get it. From what i have read what they are proposing sounds like it will make for one BIG ass pile of money, big enough that it can even help people who don't add any money to it. At the same time you can still choose to only pay to use the system in the example above too. Sounds perfect to me.
whats all this talk about socializing NHC? shouldn't it be nationalizing? oh wait... I guess that wouldnt help the conservatives get their point across... its better for them to annex government held NHC to communism then to a patriotic nathionalistic thing.
I know I'm not adding anything to the discussion, its just a side note on how funny I think americans use that term so widely.
Why are clinics cheaper? Why do companies like kaiser permanente cluster their health services into centers?
If you have five doctors and they all have their own practise they'll need 1 receptionist per practise. That's 5 receptionists and half the time they're probably not doing anything.
Doctors often band together mostly because it strengthens their bargaining power.
They band together with single insurance companies so they have more of a single payer set up. Dealing with half a dozen insurance companies with ever changing plans requires a much higher head count at higher pay rates than the front desk. No nightmare to fight, no army needed to battle it.
The patients still need all the same things up front and you can't simplify the front desk that much when you increase volume like that. Its the lowest paid easiest to fill position. Often they hire a few part timers, save on benefits and over time. Not so in the back office.
I also think you have the wrong idea about what a front desk person does...
I don't know how you connected those dots. Just go ahead and call him Hitler so this thread can be complete.
NEIN!
Maybe I still didn't explain it well, but I'm for coverage for everybody - not just the wealthy, or the employed, or the people in IronHawk's situation who have basic coverage and want more for their money. If you just lost your job or you're making minimum wage or you're a child in a poor family, I want you to have access to quality healthcare. Obviously, this means I am pro-slavery and am also a Nazi.
Ha TGZ I think you're onto something, hopefully that will catch on...
People pay into a plan probably stay pretty healthy while they're working but then retire, lose the insurance and at 65 you're added to medicare. You can buy additional coverage if you can afford it, but you're starting a new plan in addition to Medicare.
65+ is when things start getting expensive.
We have a system designed to extract the maximum amount of profit from the least sick population and dump them when they need the care on the doorstep of the gov. And so far the gov has been keeping its head above water without even being attached to the big pile of money insurance companies hoover up before ever passing people off.
I'm not going to say medicare is the solution or that it pays docs well, but we either run off a cliff, or we stop and start to build something better. After the break they have a lot of work to do in crafting those bills then reconciling them together. We'll see a lot of changes and hopefully America won't tune out. Hopefully they will chill out tho ha!
Maybe I still didn't explain it well, but I'm for coverage for everybody - not just the wealthy, or the employed, or the people in IronHawk's situation who have basic coverage and want more for their money. If you just lost your job or you're making minimum wage or you're a child in a poor family, I want you to have access to quality healthcare. Obviously, this means I am pro-slavery and am also a Nazi.
Nazi! =p
It's not that I want more I just want fairness. Cherry picking and Screwing over even people with good insurance is B.S. I am not for any sort of something for nothing plan.
I actually have really good insurance. Got an x-ray and a splint recently for just a $10.00 visit. In the past though working odd jobs to get through school or living the snowboarders life in the mountains I knew they would cover a blown ACL but yeah cancer or something I'd get screwed.
As a British Citizen I love the NHS. I like the fact that if I need the smallest thing such as when I went in last week because my allergies were causing me to loose hours of sleep but I could do it for free! Sure, I had to wait while some guy with a new knee replacement saw the same doctor, but I don't mind. I don't mind paying my taxes because it helps guys like that, who need it. I met him again in the pharmacy picking up the drugs he needed and he was 43, just been laid off from an ASDA warehouse. He needed the knee replacement because someone ran into him with a forklift truck and shattered his knee cap. In the US of A he would of have no chance, he'd now probably be in a crappy wheelchair with 1000's of $ of medical bills that he can't pay off.
No free healthcare is the only thing putting me off moving to the US of A. I fully support Obama in this and think he should go for it. You Americans who are against it; shame on you for not wanting to help your fellow man! Sure you are going to get some dickheads who don't deserve it, but you're going to get that with ANY free service.
reminds me of this doc about the american health system,
this guy had an accident with a sawtable and chopped his pinky and ringfinger off.
ariving at the hospital he could pick wich one he wanted to get stiched back, because his pinky costed 11k and his other 20k or something like that, wich was way more then he could afford.
That in the Michale Moore movie...Right?
He got his ring finger put back on so he could wear his wedding ring...If I remember correctly.
Yesterday morning i accidentally slipped with a chisel and completely severed the radial artery in my left wrist.
You can connect the dots and guess the rest :P
The Ambulance was on the scene within 5 mins and i was under the knife of a specialist within a few hrs...job done.
If they didn't respond so fast no doubt i wouldn't be typing this now.
I had to spend the night in hospital but the service was first class with all the doctors and nurses catering for my every need.
And best of all it didn't cost me an arm and a leg ( sorry couldn't resist :P)
Yea NHS is very nice. I wrecked my collar bone snowboarding one night so had to go to hospital, was a small wait but it was on a friday... got seen to an X-rayed and fixed up. They did X-ray the wrong arm at first... but hey left and right are easy to mix up...
Some people do not want health insurance (or a reform, etc) forced upon them, and therefore required to pay for it. As a healthy individual (who only goes to the doctor for a broken bone) I did not sign up for medical or dental insurance at my work, because I did not want $45 taken out of my check each week. Sure, if I get into an accident, I am screwed, but even that $45 a week would not cover but a small fraction of a huge accident. Instead, I would take out a "catastropic policy" privately, which would take care of big accidents. Long story short, I dont want to pay for something I will not use.
In the end, nothing is free. I think many people are under the impression that this new health care setup will magically make things cheaper or even free, when in reality, your taxes will just go up.
That's not to say things shouldn't be fixed. I just think the insurance, and disastrous medicare/medicaid aspects should be examined/revamped first.
When you go to the doctor, and you tell them "I do not have insurance", your total bill number will be less, than the number they would pass along to the insurance company had you had insurance. The insurance companies get milked, and these costs are passed on down with higher premiums, etc.
When you go to the doctor, and you tell them "I do not have insurance", your total bill number will be less...
A lot less like $0 for zero services rendered. Most docs are a private practice which means they are under no obligation to see or treat anyone. No shoes, no shirt, no insurance...
Most won't take someone on without insurance. They collect and verify that info up front before you're seen. Can't provide that info, you are not seen, you can reschedule or in some rare cases pay out of pocket normally up front but most places don't do that. Checks bounce, cash is tricky and most don't want to deal with the hassle.
The system is screwed up. Insurance companies post record profits and the cost for covering people keeps going up, doctors routinely milk insurance for all it's worth maxing out billable hours unnecessarily, and pharma companies give doctors trips and cater lunches for entire offices so that doctors will prescribe their meds. There are no incentives to control costs, the entire system is driven by greed.
The system is screwed up. Insurance companies post record profits and the cost for covering people keeps going up, doctors routinely milk insurance for all it's worth maxing out billable hours unnecessarily, and pharma companies give doctors trips and cater lunches for entire offices so that doctors will prescribe their meds. There are no incentives to control costs, the entire system is driven by greed.
Capitalism's really been going down the shatter lately. It's kinda like when a game's been out for a long time and the developers are long gone and people start exploiting it, and known bug exploitation become the norm and certain classes are endlessly overpowered. But you're new to the game and don't know any of the leet players, so you're just leveling up your "game artist" class, playing by the rules when you get backstabbed by a doctor for 100,000 points. Hell, i shoulda played more life when i was a kid, it was there in black and white. The doctor and the lawyer always won that frickin' game.
Oh and as a side story, i almost never go to the doctor's. When i became a father recently i spent some time at the hospital and couldn't shake the feeling that everyone there was hopped up on stuff. I couldn't tell if they were happy because they were all hopped up on drugs, or if they were thinking of how much money they were making without having to lift a finger.
In any industry there are good and bad people, nurses by and large are amazing people who work their asses off, but the pharmaceuticals and plastic surgeons and all this new age bull really doesn't do much good from what i gather. But then again i'm not a 40 year old housewife who relies on that kind of stuff.
US Health Care:
Preexisting conditions = you are screwed down the line somewhere.
I have been covered by companies before for health benefits and it is great. I have also paid on my own $165.00 a month for health insurance and it sucks. I have as well had a gap in my health insurance leading to the "Preexisting conditions" crap they try to pull on you. Last but not least, I have had to pay for COBRA insurance and that @#%! makes you curse ($220.00+ a month).
Now having the health care system that Obama wants, well frankly scares me a little. Yeah we have allot of fat lazy Americans that don't want to exercise or take care of themselves and that is only going to lead to crazy slowly skyrocketing taxes as I see it, due to their need for more health services that is. This makes me think I will be paying more than what I used to pay for normal insurance over time. Now with that said, I do want less fortunate people who just can't afford those holy hazes large bills every month to have health care they need.
So to say in the end I am very divided on the subject of health care... I am getting a deja vu vibe of the whole "Lets have a lottery and we will give money to the school systems" CON again, but this time with health care.
A lot less like $0 for zero services rendered. Most docs are a private practice which means they are under no obligation to see or treat anyone. No shoes, no shirt, no insurance...
Most won't take someone on without insurance. They collect and verify that info up front before you're seen. Can't provide that info, you are not seen, you can reschedule or in some rare cases pay out of pocket normally up front but most places don't do that. Checks bounce, cash is tricky and most don't want to deal with the hassle.
I've gone to the ER with no insurance, and the last three times I have been to the doctor, I did not have insurance. I was either sent a bill later, or paid part of it in cash. During one of those trips, when I was at the receptionist, she told me "remind the doctor before you leave, that you do not have insurance, and the amount will be lower."
Hospitals are required, by law, to fix you up. Insurance or not. Have you heard of any cases like this? People being turned away from hospitals because they don't have insurance?
Replies
There is no liberal or conservative media. They are two side of the same coin promoting sensationalism. MSNBC, FOX, CNN and corporate entity is about getting eye count for the advertisement revenue to up their bottom line. The point is none of them truly stand out for attempting true investigative journalism. Who wants that when they can hear simple viewpoints and fearmongering?
In short, Im quite tired of the attempting to call the media liberal in general in attempts as to somehow make what it reports less significant. It has less significance, but instead on the idea of making reports as said sensational.
So I am for public news via indimedia, BBC, NPR, Pacifica.
Yeh that's a really good example as to why I'm leery about getting into arguments with people about this. I get focused on telling people that they are morons for thinking Obama is going to kill their Grammy (I am in no way sarcastic, that is what Okies think will happen). I begin to miss important things like the point you just made.
I'm off to read more and argue less,
"As for his foreign policy, if you disagree with the war in Iraq, that's fine. And if it makes you step away from this thread, I guess that's fine too."
I'd be required to use a lot of strong language to explain my feelings on that subject. And I really don't want to offend anyone here because I respect the community too much. Check me out on 4chan or digg sometime if you want to have a trolling contest.
For real this time,
Peace out.
PS: Here's the link http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
I have never seen any of my friend or family go without the treatment they need to have and this includes my Grandmother who needed (and survived) a triple bypass at the age of 80 and my father who has MS and needs so much medication he rattles when you shake him.
I think the British are on to a winner...
Its basically goes like this.
If you dont work (unemployed/long term sick/disabled etc.) its free
If you earn less the £650 per week you pay 11% of your wage as National insurance
If you earn more than £650 per week you pay 12% of your wage as National insurance
If you are self employed you pay 8% unless you earn more than £650 in which case you will pay 9%
Those were the figures the last time i checked :P
As for drugs you basically pay £7 per prescription if you are working full time and don't have a permanent ailment (such as diabetes).
How much does a triple bypass and all the drugs you need for recovery cost again in the states?
You mentioned the liberal media, and I was just wondering what liberal media you were refering to in America as I don't see one at all. American tv journalism isn't much better than the build-up before a WWE fight (i.e. not to be taken seriously), and television in America in general is conservative in what it will and will not allow to be shown on the air.
I would consider the BBC very relaxed in it's restrictions on what it will and will not show on tv - hence liberal.
I don't subscribe to the 'Liberal Jew-run Media' conspriacy is what I'm saying. I DO subscribe to the 'house divided will fall' conspiracy where citizens are confused, misdirected, and goaded into arguing w/ one another while their pockets are picked by those in power.
See-->
"There is no liberal or conservative media. They are two side of the same coin promoting sensationalism."
As the pressure mounts on the system naturally, which will happen over time, it's going to strain the budget. It is projected that 87 million Americans are going to migrate to the federal plan. That's going to put a massive burden on the system! When the system is burdened, the only way to cut cost is to ration health care. Fact: Healthy people bring no burden to the health care system. You can't cut cost for them because they are healthy. So you cut cost on the people who are needing care. And the only way to cut cost, under this plan, is to ration health care.
The white house is pushing for reform but what that is and how it looks is up to a lot of really old men and a few wrinkly women all of whom we voted for, to represent our interests. Hopefully they take that job seriously and craft our future responsibly.
I've always had my employer pay for health care that covers everything. Doesn't bother me really that people who can pay the basics themselves get dropped like bitches if they get something nasty.
See how that works? If you won't help the people worse off than you, you can't expect assistance from the people better off than you. Someone's taxes have to pay for the reform you want, and it it's not going to be the folks on welfare.
yeah catastrophic care is a crock of shit man. of course you dont care cause your a calous asshat.
see how that works?
Either you take care of everyone or you change nothing. Looking out for yourself, in your specific situation, is the selfish bullshit that got us here in the first place.
Shit would get done.
Problem with American politics is that the most people with the money who are way better off really don't give a shit about people who don't have that much money. They seem to be completely apathetic.
What we need is a general sense of empathy. It is seriously lacking in this country, as well as the rest of the world. We need poeple in power who understand the blight of poverty and have felt the sting of desperation and helplessness in order to fix it.
If we can do it, so can the USA
The NHS has a budget of around £102/$168 Billion per year (6% GDP) so if the USA used the same formula it would come out to around $884 Billion (if my maths are right :P) which would be more than enough to care for everyone who needed it 3 or 4 times over.
I just hope you guys can get some sort of a consensus and sort things out before too long
but but but, we need to spend $1trillion a year on important stuff like destabalizing governments
I try and stay away from american political debates cause it always just seems it boils down to people just calling each other liberal/conservative as if this backs up their point.
I really don't think americans know what liberal / socialist / communist is. Our Conservative party is prob %100 more liberal than the most liberal american and no one here goes on about commies.
I don't know whats up with the US but man their is some deep rooted hate down there and I just don't understand it. For being one of the most patriotic countries people really dont' get along with each other.
Anyone got any stats on what the average person pays per month for health care insurance in the states? I'm interested in how it compares to how much I pay in taxes.
It's down to £4 per prescription now in Scotland, and my eye medicine now comes in a 3 month batch. So I pay my 12% each month and £16 a year to not go blind.
Plus they're trying to make it free aswell. Students get everything free here, good times.
I do not understand this argument. It's a classic case of people's greed blinding them to the real costs.
If everyone who works pays a percentage of their pay it will cost less for you than if everyone pays a fixed amount. This is because the percentage will favour anyone not earning large amounts. I doubt anyone here earns millions a year.
Also if everyone has healthcare then there's something called "economy of scale" that kicks in and helps to make it cheaper. Some things are just better if they're done on a huge scale.
You don't understand what I'm saying or what IronHawk's request was about?
I don't think economy of scale applies to much of the health care business. Goods might be cheaper, but I can't see a hospital running a discount on heart surgeries because they're doing so many of them.
Why are clinics cheaper? Why do companies like kaiser permanente cluster their health services into centers?
If you have five doctors and they all have their own practise they'll need 1 receptionist per practise. That's 5 receptionists and half the time they're probably not doing anything. If you put the same five doctors in a clinic they'll only need to pay for one receptionist. The same thing may apply for other services those doctors might need like laundry.
Why do you think the private health insurance companies waste so much money on administration? it's because each insurer has their own administration apparatus which is duplicated for every one of them.
Health care reform, when it finally arrives, won't replace the option for individual private practice. Universal health insurance may pay for your treatment with that doctor, whole or in part, but I can't see any significant structural changes to the nuts and bolts of American medical practice.
*edit*
To follow this a bit, I'm not saying clinics don't have a place and all. Obviously, they're all over the place in any US city. But that's a decision made by the individual doctors, and will remain so. The savings you're describing already exist, if a given physician is interested in it - if he doesn't want to pay a receptionist entirely out of his own profits, he's free to join a group of like-minded docs and share the bill. But that whole issue is independent of who provides the insurance and foots the bill for services.
I see from the edits that you sort of agree with me... I think.
Either way the point I was addressing was a very common counterargument in this sort of debate.
You wouldn't have to force anything. People could still go to their old doctors. They'd just have the choice to go to a cheaper government backed clinic. You could even reimburse them for a set amount based on how much they pay the government employed doctors. Really good doctors would be worth paying extra for.
Strangely this is the way it works in australia. You can go to a private doctor and pay a bit of extra money. Or you can go to a government clinic or hospital and not pay anything (bulk billing). It hasn't put any good doctors out of business and you will always be able to get medical care.
Okay, but how is this different than what's already going on in America? I believe most doctors are partners in clinics. My dentist is a solo act, but every doctor I can remember going to in the last ten years or whatever has been part of a clinic group. The only way health care would get cheaper "in bulk" is if you had some enticement to get doctors to form more and larger clinics than they already occupy. What would encourage doctors to do that anymore than they already are?
Err... I think so too. Mostly. That works for me
lol.. with your logic slavery is moral.
Fuck man I'm glad your not my friend. you have no sense of unity , compassion or just being someone that I would trust to have my back in a tough situation.
You could come back just say your being a realist however its just an excuse for not giving a fuck about people.
So you pay $XXX an month every month for years just in case you need some help later. You ask nothing in return in the mean time other than the reassurance that you will get the help you need it. Then when your time of need comes your informed that you can't be helped as the cause of your needs might predate your first payment.
The idea of insurance is that its a pile of money that everyone that adds to it can can take money out of when they need it. So a the bigger the pile the safer everyone who adds to it is that when they need help they can get it. From what i have read what they are proposing sounds like it will make for one BIG ass pile of money, big enough that it can even help people who don't add any money to it. At the same time you can still choose to only pay to use the system in the example above too. Sounds perfect to me.
I know I'm not adding anything to the discussion, its just a side note on how funny I think americans use that term so widely.
They band together with single insurance companies so they have more of a single payer set up. Dealing with half a dozen insurance companies with ever changing plans requires a much higher head count at higher pay rates than the front desk. No nightmare to fight, no army needed to battle it.
The patients still need all the same things up front and you can't simplify the front desk that much when you increase volume like that. Its the lowest paid easiest to fill position. Often they hire a few part timers, save on benefits and over time. Not so in the back office.
I also think you have the wrong idea about what a front desk person does...
I don't know how you connected those dots. Just go ahead and call him Hitler so this thread can be complete.
NEIN!
Maybe I still didn't explain it well, but I'm for coverage for everybody - not just the wealthy, or the employed, or the people in IronHawk's situation who have basic coverage and want more for their money. If you just lost your job or you're making minimum wage or you're a child in a poor family, I want you to have access to quality healthcare. Obviously, this means I am pro-slavery and am also a Nazi.
People pay into a plan probably stay pretty healthy while they're working but then retire, lose the insurance and at 65 you're added to medicare. You can buy additional coverage if you can afford it, but you're starting a new plan in addition to Medicare.
65+ is when things start getting expensive.
We have a system designed to extract the maximum amount of profit from the least sick population and dump them when they need the care on the doorstep of the gov. And so far the gov has been keeping its head above water without even being attached to the big pile of money insurance companies hoover up before ever passing people off.
I'm not going to say medicare is the solution or that it pays docs well, but we either run off a cliff, or we stop and start to build something better. After the break they have a lot of work to do in crafting those bills then reconciling them together. We'll see a lot of changes and hopefully America won't tune out. Hopefully they will chill out tho ha!
Nazi! =p
It's not that I want more I just want fairness. Cherry picking and Screwing over even people with good insurance is B.S. I am not for any sort of something for nothing plan.
I actually have really good insurance. Got an x-ray and a splint recently for just a $10.00 visit. In the past though working odd jobs to get through school or living the snowboarders life in the mountains I knew they would cover a blown ACL but yeah cancer or something I'd get screwed.
No free healthcare is the only thing putting me off moving to the US of A. I fully support Obama in this and think he should go for it. You Americans who are against it; shame on you for not wanting to help your fellow man! Sure you are going to get some dickheads who don't deserve it, but you're going to get that with ANY free service.
That in the Michale Moore movie...Right?
He got his ring finger put back on so he could wear his wedding ring...If I remember correctly.
Health care needs reform! nuff said
Yesterday morning i accidentally slipped with a chisel and completely severed the radial artery in my left wrist.
You can connect the dots and guess the rest :P
The Ambulance was on the scene within 5 mins and i was under the knife of a specialist within a few hrs...job done.
If they didn't respond so fast no doubt i wouldn't be typing this now.
I had to spend the night in hospital but the service was first class with all the doctors and nurses catering for my every need.
And best of all it didn't cost me an arm and a leg ( sorry couldn't resist :P)
In the end, nothing is free. I think many people are under the impression that this new health care setup will magically make things cheaper or even free, when in reality, your taxes will just go up.
That's not to say things shouldn't be fixed. I just think the insurance, and disastrous medicare/medicaid aspects should be examined/revamped first.
When you go to the doctor, and you tell them "I do not have insurance", your total bill number will be less, than the number they would pass along to the insurance company had you had insurance. The insurance companies get milked, and these costs are passed on down with higher premiums, etc.
Most won't take someone on without insurance. They collect and verify that info up front before you're seen. Can't provide that info, you are not seen, you can reschedule or in some rare cases pay out of pocket normally up front but most places don't do that. Checks bounce, cash is tricky and most don't want to deal with the hassle.
Capitalism's really been going down the shatter lately. It's kinda like when a game's been out for a long time and the developers are long gone and people start exploiting it, and known bug exploitation become the norm and certain classes are endlessly overpowered. But you're new to the game and don't know any of the leet players, so you're just leveling up your "game artist" class, playing by the rules when you get backstabbed by a doctor for 100,000 points. Hell, i shoulda played more life when i was a kid, it was there in black and white. The doctor and the lawyer always won that frickin' game.
Oh and as a side story, i almost never go to the doctor's. When i became a father recently i spent some time at the hospital and couldn't shake the feeling that everyone there was hopped up on stuff. I couldn't tell if they were happy because they were all hopped up on drugs, or if they were thinking of how much money they were making without having to lift a finger.
In any industry there are good and bad people, nurses by and large are amazing people who work their asses off, but the pharmaceuticals and plastic surgeons and all this new age bull really doesn't do much good from what i gather. But then again i'm not a 40 year old housewife who relies on that kind of stuff.
Preexisting conditions = you are screwed down the line somewhere.
I have been covered by companies before for health benefits and it is great. I have also paid on my own $165.00 a month for health insurance and it sucks. I have as well had a gap in my health insurance leading to the "Preexisting conditions" crap they try to pull on you. Last but not least, I have had to pay for COBRA insurance and that @#%! makes you curse ($220.00+ a month).
Now having the health care system that Obama wants, well frankly scares me a little. Yeah we have allot of fat lazy Americans that don't want to exercise or take care of themselves and that is only going to lead to crazy slowly skyrocketing taxes as I see it, due to their need for more health services that is. This makes me think I will be paying more than what I used to pay for normal insurance over time. Now with that said, I do want less fortunate people who just can't afford those holy hazes large bills every month to have health care they need.
So to say in the end I am very divided on the subject of health care... I am getting a deja vu vibe of the whole "Lets have a lottery and we will give money to the school systems" CON again, but this time with health care.
I've gone to the ER with no insurance, and the last three times I have been to the doctor, I did not have insurance. I was either sent a bill later, or paid part of it in cash. During one of those trips, when I was at the receptionist, she told me "remind the doctor before you leave, that you do not have insurance, and the amount will be lower."