Post: #51

(03-05-2013 07:05 PM)scorpion Wrote:  It's a very complicated issue, but essentially it boils down to the fact that for better or worse Americans value freedom (or at least the appearance of it) over good health. It's just a cultural thing.

This.

Post: #52

3 day ban for Partizan.

Post: #53

To all the Brits on this thread; you mean well, but really don't waste your time. Like Churchill once said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else."

Never mind the fact that we pay almost 18% of our GDP in health costs, the highest in the world. Never mind the fact almost half of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical costs. Never mind the fact that people are dying needlessly because of lack of medical coverage. We have be dragged kicking in screaming to get anything done in this country. This is a nation of petulant children. Think of a room full of children tantruming; now imagine trying to get something done those people. That's America in a nutshell.

We already have public health coverage for the old (65+) and the poor. It's the middle class that's getting fucked over. But soon it'll be medical coverage for all. We're already down that road thanks to the recent health care reform act. Sixty-five years behind Britain but that's how it is. America can be admired for many things. Politics just isn't one of them.

Post: #54

(03-05-2013 06:58 PM)Partizan Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 06:53 PM)NYJ Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 06:49 PM)Partizan Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 06:41 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 06:36 PM)Partizan Wrote:  The Military Industrial Complex in the US needs its trillions to wage wars and cause death and misery across the globe so screw the people.

I see you have an Italian flag.

Don't forget -- the United States spent considerable amounts of its blood and treasure (a) liberating you from the hobnail boots of the Nazis and (b) protecting you from the next great totalitarian state, The Soviet Union.

So tell you what...you can talk shit about the United States when you, in Italy, achieve the equivalent.

I am not holding my breath.

Its Irish actually and dont give me 'we saved you from the Nazis/Commies crap'.

Jesus wept.

Eh, I was about to post saying that wasn't an Italian flag nor were the Italians liberated from the Nazis. Godwin's law violation for sure.

I think the big factor into why we don't have UHC is our sheer population size. We're a country of 300 million plus when right next door Canada only has a pop of roughly 34.5 million.

Comes back to my original point that the US state should be spending more on education because if it had been, tenderman would have been a bit more informed.

I am not taking sides, but that was a pretty clean diss.

Post: #55

(03-05-2013 07:48 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  To all the Brits on this thread; you mean well, but really don't waste your time. Like Churchill once said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else."

Never mind the fact that we pay almost 18% of our GDP in health costs, the highest in the world. Never mind the fact almost half of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical costs. Never mind the fact that people are dying needlessly because of lack of medical coverage. We have be dragged kicking in screaming to get anything done in this country. This is a nation of petulant children. Think of a room full of children tantruming; now imagine trying to get something done those people. That's America in a nutshell.

We already have public health coverage for the old (65+) and the poor. It's the middle class that's getting fucked over. But soon it'll be medical coverage for all. We're already down that road thanks to the recent health care reform act. Sixty-five years behind Britain but that's how it is. America can be admired for many things. Politics just isn't one of them.

This is ridiculous. The discussion seems to have degenerated into calling Americans names. Who are these people in the US dying of lack of health care? Give me 2 examples. I certainly have no shortage of examples of people getting sick/dying from inadequate care under socialized systems.

I've lived in both the UK and the US. UK care was horrible and I found no Brits there bragging about the quality of health care. As I said above, there is a parallel system of private care that everyone who can afford it uses. I don't deny US health care has serious problems (it is much too expensive) but most of the comments on here just sound like vague ideological pronouncements thrown out by people who have no experience of the health care systems they're talking about.

Post: #56

I dislike the idea of paying extra tax for people to get free healthcare when they make bad decisions.I don't trust hospitals very much and I would trust them even less if they were run by the government.

As it stands, I am in good health and I am almost never sick. When I am sick it is usually only for a day. I have heard from friends that some people get sick with the flu for two weeks! That's unheard of for me, save a stomach bug I got when I lived in France when I was seven.

Maybe my health is from good genetics. Maybe it is from my diet or general level of fitness. I do take calculated risks with my body and I don't expect someone else to pay for my healthcare if I make mistakes.

In my family, we have a saying about good health: "Pick your parents and stay out of the hospital!"

Wald

Post: #57

(03-05-2013 07:58 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 07:48 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  To all the Brits on this thread; you mean well, but really don't waste your time. Like Churchill once said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else."

Never mind the fact that we pay almost 18% of our GDP in health costs, the highest in the world. Never mind the fact almost half of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical costs. Never mind the fact that people are dying needlessly because of lack of medical coverage. We have be dragged kicking in screaming to get anything done in this country. This is a nation of petulant children. Think of a room full of children tantruming; now imagine trying to get something done those people. That's America in a nutshell.

We already have public health coverage for the old (65+) and the poor. It's the middle class that's getting fucked over. But soon it'll be medical coverage for all. We're already down that road thanks to the recent health care reform act. Sixty-five years behind Britain but that's how it is. America can be admired for many things. Politics just isn't one of them.

This is ridiculous. The discussion seems to have degenerated into calling Americans names. Who are these people in the US dying of lack of health care? Give me 2 examples. I certainly have no shortage of examples of people getting sick/dying from inadequate care under socialized systems.

I've lived in both the UK and the US. UK care was horrible and I found no Brits there bragging about the quality of health care. As I said above, there is a parallel system of private care that everyone who can afford it uses. I don't deny US health care has serious problems (it is much too expensive) but most of the comments on here just sound like vague ideological pronouncements thrown out by people who have no experience of the health care systems they're talking about.

First of all, Brits complaining about something? What else is new? As much as I love them, I am an Anglophile after all, but it's pretty much understood the British have raised whining to an art form. But ask anyone of those Brits if they'd like to see the NHS gone. It's not even a discussion. Ask any Brit if they think it's fine that a large segment of the population is without health coverage. The answers aren't hard to predict.

As far as people dying from lack of medical coverage, just google it. Here's one article:

Quote:Lack of health insurance,” that study found, “is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year in the United States, more than those caused by kidney disease.” http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/...finds_.php

Post: #58

(03-05-2013 08:15 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 07:58 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 07:48 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  To all the Brits on this thread; you mean well, but really don't waste your time. Like Churchill once said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else."

Never mind the fact that we pay almost 18% of our GDP in health costs, the highest in the world. Never mind the fact almost half of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical costs. Never mind the fact that people are dying needlessly because of lack of medical coverage. We have be dragged kicking in screaming to get anything done in this country. This is a nation of petulant children. Think of a room full of children tantruming; now imagine trying to get something done those people. That's America in a nutshell.

We already have public health coverage for the old (65+) and the poor. It's the middle class that's getting fucked over. But soon it'll be medical coverage for all. We're already down that road thanks to the recent health care reform act. Sixty-five years behind Britain but that's how it is. America can be admired for many things. Politics just isn't one of them.

This is ridiculous. The discussion seems to have degenerated into calling Americans names. Who are these people in the US dying of lack of health care? Give me 2 examples. I certainly have no shortage of examples of people getting sick/dying from inadequate care under socialized systems.

I've lived in both the UK and the US. UK care was horrible and I found no Brits there bragging about the quality of health care. As I said above, there is a parallel system of private care that everyone who can afford it uses. I don't deny US health care has serious problems (it is much too expensive) but most of the comments on here just sound like vague ideological pronouncements thrown out by people who have no experience of the health care systems they're talking about.

First of all, Brits complaining about something? What else is new? As much as I love them, I am an Anglophile after all, but it's pretty much understood the British have raised whining to an art form. But ask anyone of those Brits if they'd like to see the NHS gone. It's not even a discussion. Ask any Brit if they think it's fine that a large segment of the population is without health coverage. The answers aren't hard to predict.

As far as people dying from lack of medical coverage, just google it. Here's one article:

Quote:Lack of health insurance,” that study found, “is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year in the United States, more than those caused by kidney disease.” While, you, as Mitt of 2012, claimed that the government will protect those without insurance, the same study found that “alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance.” http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/...finds_.php

PNHP is a lobbying group for national healthcare and the authors of the study cited also make clear they have an agenda. Not exactly objective sources. And even these biased sources are only arguing that 45,000 deaths (out of a pop of 300 million) are linked in some way to inadequate health insurance.

But I'd settle for anecdotal evidence - a couple of examples of people dying due to lack of health insurance.

Post: #59

(03-05-2013 08:21 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  PNHP is a lobbying group for national healthcare and the authors of the study cited also make clear they have an agenda. Not exactly objective sources. But I'd settle for anecdotal evidence - a couple of examples of people dying due to lack of health insurance.

The article is talking about a Harvard University study. You can google the study itself or find articles from every major news publication talking about it. Take your pick.

Post: #60

It only cost 10 bucks to see the doc in Mexico about 4 bucks for my Puffer.

Uh... I think in total the most I ever paid for healthcare in China was 1150 rmb (about 200 bucks), that included ambulance ride, stay in the hospital for 3 or 4 days, all drugs, private care from 3 doctors. private room with a bed for my wife to sleep in. 3 Meals a day, Internet, cable TV, IV's, Oxygen, X-Rays, Needles...

I think the americans are getting seriously fvcked in terms of healthcare... doctors here don't make much more than 800 bucks a month and there are not enough jobs at hospitals for them...there are 100s of thousands of doctors here in China and only 10s of thousands of jobs. So...something ain't right in America or back home...

Post: #61

(03-05-2013 08:24 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 08:21 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  PNHP is a lobbying group for national healthcare and the authors of the study cited also make clear they have an agenda. Not exactly objective sources. But I'd settle for anecdotal evidence - a couple of examples of people dying due to lack of health insurance.

The article is talking about a Harvard University study. You can google the study itself or find articles from every major news publication talking about it. Take your pick.

Oh well, if it is from Harvard it must be true. No one there has an agenda. Seriously, a quick search shows that the authors have ties to PNHP. In any case even they come up with a fairly small number of deaths relative to the population and even for these there is a dubious link between lack of health care and the death (i.e., we can assume this is a top of the range estimate). Obviously, any country can reduce its death rate by increasing health care. The goal is to design a system that provides maximum access at the lowest price - an efficient allocation of resources.

In any case, I'm not arguing in favor of the US system or the healthy lifestyles of Americans. I'm just disputing your argument that the UK system can be a model or is obviously superior to the US model. Here is an article describing avoidable deaths resulting from the crappy care provided in the UK - arguably an unavoidable result of an inefficient national system. http://rt.com/news/hospital-cover-up-uk-190/ (excess deaths of 1,000 in Stafford alone).

Post: #62

(03-05-2013 08:38 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 08:24 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 08:21 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  PNHP is a lobbying group for national healthcare and the authors of the study cited also make clear they have an agenda. Not exactly objective sources. But I'd settle for anecdotal evidence - a couple of examples of people dying due to lack of health insurance.

The article is talking about a Harvard University study. You can google the study itself or find articles from every major news publication talking about it. Take your pick.

Oh well, if it is from Harvard it must be true. No one there has an agenda. Seriously, a quick search shows that the authors have ties to PNHP. In any case even they come up with a fairly small number of deaths relative to the population and even for these there is a dubious link between lack of health care and the death (i.e., we can assume this is a top of the range estimate). Obviously, any country can reduce its death rate by increasing health care. The goal is to design a system that provides maximum access at the lowest price - an efficient allocation of resources.

In any case, I'm not arguing in favor of the US system or the healthy lifestyles of Americans. I'm just disputing your argument that the UK system can be a model or is obviously superior to the US model. Here is an article describing avoidable deaths resulting from the crappy care provided in the UK - arguably an unavoidable result of an inefficient national system. http://rt.com/news/hospital-cover-up-uk-190/ (excess deaths of 1,000 in Stafford alone).

You're obviously not reading my posts in its entirety. When did I say it the NHS can be a model for us? How it can be superior to our model when we have no model to compare to? And talking about agendas then posting an RT link. Come on....

Post: #63

(03-05-2013 08:48 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 08:38 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 08:24 PM)A CLOCKWORK TRADER Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 08:21 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  PNHP is a lobbying group for national healthcare and the authors of the study cited also make clear they have an agenda. Not exactly objective sources. But I'd settle for anecdotal evidence - a couple of examples of people dying due to lack of health insurance.

The article is talking about a Harvard University study. You can google the study itself or find articles from every major news publication talking about it. Take your pick.

Oh well, if it is from Harvard it must be true. No one there has an agenda. Seriously, a quick search shows that the authors have ties to PNHP. In any case even they come up with a fairly small number of deaths relative to the population and even for these there is a dubious link between lack of health care and the death (i.e., we can assume this is a top of the range estimate). Obviously, any country can reduce its death rate by increasing health care. The goal is to design a system that provides maximum access at the lowest price - an efficient allocation of resources.

In any case, I'm not arguing in favor of the US system or the healthy lifestyles of Americans. I'm just disputing your argument that the UK system can be a model or is obviously superior to the US model. Here is an article describing avoidable deaths resulting from the crappy care provided in the UK - arguably an unavoidable result of an inefficient national system. http://rt.com/news/hospital-cover-up-uk-190/ (excess deaths of 1,000 in Stafford alone).

You're obviously not reading my posts in its entirety. When did I say it the NHS can be a model for us? How it can be superior to our model when we have no model to compare to? And talking about agendas then posting an RT link. Come on....

Well, you said the US was 65 years behind the UK. And the rest of your posts also imply the UK system is superior. And to say the US has no model is obviously nonsensical. Even if it was entirely a free market system (it is actually one of the most regulated industries) that would still be a system. Here is the BBC reporting on the same issue of excess deaths if that is more to your liking http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21668229

Post: #64

Why are there so many doctors in China, Russia, and other places like that? Is the Medical School in these countries as rigorous as it is in the United States?

Most doctors I've spoken to feel quite justified in charging "fair" (read: the standard high prices) for medical care, because they endured many years of hell in medical school and residency afterwards, and have to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans. On top of that, American medical technology is typically cutting-edge, which is wonderful, but comes at a price. American hospitals, too, are burdened by thousands of regulations which the government mandates they comply with, so costs are driven up there, too. E.g., instead of saying "this patient has AIDS, double glove before taking his blood," they just double glove for everyone, because it might be traumatic to the AIDS patient to be treated differently. This uses twice as many resources, the costs of which are passed on to all the patients in the form of higher prices. The general thought is that the current system is "good enough," and that the quality of care will go down. Furthermore, few people like the idea of paying more taxes so that John who studied theatre instead of engineering and makes $30,000/year with no benefits can get the same medical care that they do, while the extra regulations would undoubtedly make higher-quality "pay for your own care" options even more expensive than they already are.

Costs in the US are also driven upwards by the insurance industry. There are standard rates for procedures and insurance compensation, and doctors tend to bill the insurance for as much as they can, which drives up the cost of insurance. Many doctors will happily negotiate with patients for a reduced out-of-pocket cost, but this is complicated when you only see the doctor for 3 minutes and mostly deal with his nurses, physicians' assistants, and office clerks. Finally, another consideration, with all the overhead, many doctors have difficulties running a profitable operation if they practice in poorer areas, because most of their patients do not have insurance and are not paying out of pocket, but are on Medicaid. Medicaid's reimbursement is fixed and low, and this makes it difficult for doctors to both provide high quality care and make any money, because no matter what they do, they are only going to receive a fixed amount from the government. There hasn't been a scheme put forward yet, to my knowledge, which would alleviate this.

Americans would perhaps be more in favor of universal health care (aka "socialized medicine") if there were ironclad guarantees that their health care and patient experience would be just as good or better than it is now, and if they were assured that their taxes would not increase as a result.

Post: #65

(03-05-2013 04:57 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I have posted this question under another thread, I just thought it deserves a thread as I am truly baffled as to the vitriolic opposition of it from many Americans.

What is so bad about it considering you are the only 1st world nation without it.

I was watching Breaking Bad, and it occurred to me that the idea that someone should go into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt due to cancer is just fucking cruel, straight up.

Even when people have insurance, it seems it is often deemed unacceptable by the health establishment/insurance companies.

I will make an attempt starting with this......

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." -- Dr. Adrian P. Rogers (September 12, 1931 - November 15, 2005) of Love Worth Finding Ministries, Pastor Emeritus of Bellevue Baptist Church.

Now to your Questions:

What's so bad about it ? just like the rest of the 1st world countries we will loose economic strength and a decline in health care. Believe me this discussion is beyond the scope of typing on the forum, So many facets that need tackled and something has to give, one way or the other.

Now to your second question : Even when people have Insurance, Insurance companies don't accept. True , we live in Corporate America, Insurance companies and Hospital administrations are Corporations designed to make money just like Financial Institutions etc etc etc.

Yes the Cost of Healthcare is High in USA, The same Bypass Surgery that costs $ 80,000 in us can de done for $ 10,000 outside USA by US Board Certified Physicians. Why is the cost High. CEO's of Insurance Companies, Medical Device companies, etc etc.

Who gets Universal Health care, every one who doesn't have one. Who funds it, Govt, heck no, Taxes from the The working class People. Do you think the working class people support this ?

I agree health care should be available to everyone but for free ..... There is only one Pie and how many pieces we are going to make of it.

Guess who benefits from Universal Health care, You think People, wrong , There would be an Influx of people driving to hospitals with newly acquired Insurances. have we built more hospitals, Produced more Physicians etc etc, Result DILUTION OF HEALTHCARE People who think they will get same healthcare as today are dead wrong , they will get a portion of today's pie ........, Who benefits Hopital admin, Pharmaceuticals, Medical Device companies (Corporations) by diverting more of tax payer dollars to Hopitals, Labs, Pharmaceuticals etc. etc. Do anticipate a rise in healthcare Stocks and Jobs , There is going to be demand ..........

Lets talk about your Guy from Breaking Bad What happens to the same Guy with Cancer in Socialized healthcare Countries, slow diagnosis, prolonged schedule to get PET SCAN , MRI etc.... 6 month or more waiting for surgeries. Patient may even die waiting for Chemotherapy to be started. I agree in US patient may be handed down a large Bill but he gets treatment poor or Rich. Personally I would like to have Strong Game Financially and lift my own burden of Paying my bills rather then begging the Govt or the working class people to pay my bills.

Apologies for the rant Teedub, just trying to answer your questions, again It's beyond the scope of my typing to explain all this to you, PM me, Better Call me. I will be more then happy to explain more...

Post: #66

(03-05-2013 08:53 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  Well, you said the US was 65 years behind the UK. And the rest of your posts also imply the UK system is superior. And to say the US has no model is obviously nonsensical. Even if it was entirely a free market system (it is actually one of the most regulated industries) that would still be a system. Here is the BBC reporting on the same issue of excess deaths if that is more to your liking http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21668229

It's pretty simple. Sixty-five years behind the UK. As in the NHS started 65 years ago. And we in the US still don't have universal medical coverage.

The US has no equivalent public model. Obviously, right? We don't have universal health coverage. We need a universal healthcare system in order to compare ourselves with the NHS. We have fragments of a public system; ie, medicare and medicaid. The system as a whole? No. Private system? Obviously...

You linked up a BBC article. I read it. What's the problem? There is always a scandal with the NHS. As with any government system. No breaking news here. The same story reports itself every year. But again, ask Brits if it's better not to have the NHS. The argument stops right there.

Post: #67

As a Brit, I'll weigh in with my opinion on the matter. I'm not very politically aware owing to the fact that it's something that has never interested me so I only call things as I see it.

While I am desensitised to the fact that I can go and be seen by a trained healthcare professional costing me no further outlay than my taxes, the treatment is very poor in comparison to treatment you can receive elsewhere in the world and the "equality" of it is something that pisses me off.

On one hand I agree that the humane thing to do is to make sure every person is received at the same level and treated without prejudice or discrimination but to get healthy. On the other hand I don't see why people who don't contribute to the service should receive any benefits.

Case in point, if you look at my payslips every month, you will see that I pay over £1000 on income tax alone as well as national insurance. On top of that, I pay a further £100 for the upkeep and maintenance of my community.

As someone who is technically paying for a service, I should receive priority over those who don't in my eyes. My money is going towards a lot of people who have no intention of getting a job and paying taxes but are happy enough to take free money and free healthcare for doing absolutely nothing. That's my income tax and my council tax going towards these people. I am contributing towards their lives and they have done absolutely nothing for me. In fact, these people get in my way.

How is that fair? In December, I suffered with tonsilitis and went to my GP to get an appointment with the doctor. They couldn't offer me an appointment for 2 weeks. In the waiting area were young foreign mothers, middle aged unemployed people and other foreigners. These people aren't contributing to society and the services they are using. Instead, I had to walk 2 miles to a walk in centre and wait in the waiting area for 2 hours and 45 minutes before I could be seen. Again, in front of me were more of the same people.

A couple of months earlier I had the flu and went into my GP surgery. I was visibly sweating and suffering. A middle aged woman got to the counter in front of me and took the last available appointment for the next 6 or 7 days which was for 3pm that afternoon. I was dumbfounded at the conversation when she was booking the appointment.

Receptionist: Is 3pm this afternoon okay?
Woman: Hmmm, I've got to go sign on at the job centre at 3pm....but yeah fuck it. They can fuck off. Let's do 3pm.

No lie or exaggeration, that's pretty much word for word what happened. Not only is this woman claiming unemployment benefits, but she's also using a healthcare service she isn't contributing to before someone who pays more in a month in taxes than she will earn all year. Is that fair?

I think for those who pay their taxes, the healthcare system is okay. The treatment itself isn't the best and if you see a GP the general feeling in the air is "see this guy as quick as possible so I can get the next guy in". I've had doctors in their 50s having to consult books to try diagnose me with common problems such as eczema and glandular fever. They're jacks of all trades, masters of none.

The waiting is the worst part and the people who come over to this country purely for the healthcare is an absoute farce. Just today I signed up to a new GP surgery in my new area and next to me also registering was a Bengali couple who could hardly speak a word of English. I saw on their forms that they'd been in the UK less than a week. There are also countless examples in the news of people coming to England and leaving as soon as they've received their medicine/treatment which would cost them thousands of pounds in their own country. Is this fair that time is being spent on these people, and money they haven't earned is being spent on these people, over people that pay their taxes?

I have a fairly controversial view that people who are not contributing to these services should not get them no matter how inhumane the circumstances. Sick people with no money and ill babies shouldn't receive treatment because they haven't paid for it. It's harsh, but as a nation and indeed as a race, bottom dwellers need to be cut off I think. If they aren't contributing to society, why should society provide for them for nothing in return but more demand for consuming?

You don't go into a restaurant, not pay for anything and expect food to be given to you. Why should it be the same for the health service? Think of how much more money this country would have to improve the life of those contributing to it if the bottom feeders and bottom dwellers were cut off.

Post: #68

Another point, we have more illegal Mexicans in this country than most European countries have people.

The closest the U.S has to a public model would be the VA hospitals, which up until recently were absolutely horrifying in their quality of care.

What it really boils down to is, why should I have to pay for the stupidity and vanity of others? Most ambulance rides involve either geriatric women, bariatric blobs, or drunken wahoos.

Post: #69

(03-05-2013 05:47 PM)Kentucky Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 05:41 PM)Apollo Wrote:  Although this is no longer a political majority, some of us in the U.S. do not recognize "the government" as some independent, holier-than-thou institution that holds moral and intellectual superiority over everyone and everything. Instead, we see it as a function of the people (you and me) that comprise it.

So when you say that "a government's fundamental role is to care for its citizens", we interpret that as "you have an obligation to care for you neighbor".

To that assertion, I simply say...I sure as hell do not have any such obligation. (morally)

Yes big corporations are much more trustworthy than the government

It is due to individualism you see selfishness as a moral trait.

Re: whoever said Americans are healthier - are you joking? Free healthcare does NOT cause ppl to not take care of their health what madness.

If you don't believe in free healthcare why not charge people for firemen? Don't pay your house burns down

Note also that despite having no healthcare you instead pump your cash into the military. This tells you where your priorities lie. Bombing foreigners instead of caring for the sick and poor

Prior to the mid 20th century the U.S. played a much more cautious role in intervening in world affairs, after two World Wars we saw the consequences of failing to engage until the shit got out of control.
Being the 'world police' is not easy or cheap. So far no other country has stepped up to take on that burden...

Post: #70

@Clock

It shouldn't be NHS or not. Of course if you get it for free, you'll be yeah. But taxes I pay on this shit is insane. There's a fucking 20% VAT tax in the UK. On top of my payroll tax and then my council tax for my flat. The NHS is not that efficient for what it takes to fund it. The Scandinavian countries have barely more taxes than the UK but the level and quality of services they provide kicks the crap out of UK.

As a foreigner, I'm double fucked too since I don't even get a say in how my taxes are spent.

Post: #71

(03-05-2013 09:52 PM)cibo Wrote:  @Clock

It shouldn't be NHS or not. Of course if you get it for free, you'll be yeah. But taxes I pay on this shit is insane. There's a fucking 20% VAT tax in the UK. On top of my payroll tax and then my council tax for my flat. The NHS is not that efficient for what it takes to fund it. The Scandinavian countries have barely more taxes than the UK but the level and quality of services they provide kicks the crap out of UK.

As a foreigner, I'm double fucked too since I don't even get a say in how my taxes are spent.

How so? Out of curiosity. How is the way they run their services different?

Post: #72

(03-05-2013 10:06 PM)MattC Wrote:  How so? Out of curiosity. How is the way they run their services different?

Mainly, the government being pragmatic not ideological, willing to experiment with different approaches and results oriented.

economist Wrote:Even more striking than the Nordic world’s commitment to balancing its books is its enthusiasm for experimenting with new ideas. The Swedish state now allows private companies to compete with government bodies for public contracts. The majority of new health clinics and kindergartens are being built by private companies, frequently using private money. The state also allows citizens to shop around for the best services and take the money with them.

economist Wrote:Controlling public spending is the hardest job in politics. The Nordics have succeeded because of their willingness to focus on results rather than on ideologies.
Source: http://www.economist.com/news/special-re...-more-less

I would read the special reports on the Nordic countries. It's quite a fascinating read of what's possible for a post-socialist government model.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/specialreports scroll to Northern Lights Jan 31th

Post: #73

Nice one, I'll read up on it tomorrow when my brain is more capable of digesting it.

Post: #74

(03-05-2013 07:58 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  I dislike the idea of paying extra tax for people to get free healthcare when they make bad decisions.

Here's a thought experiment for those who like the idea of government run universal health care.

Bob Jones comes into the emergency room...wheezing, short of breath.

He is 48. He is 50 lbs overweight. He hasn't exercised in 30 years. His diet is terrible -- he eats tons of processed food, loads of simple carbs. For years, he thinks lettuce and green vegetables are for rabbits.

He has never seen a doctor until now.

The tests are run, the blood is drawn. Bob has had a myocardial infarction.

He remains in the hospital for 3 days. The cardiologist decides he needs an a cardiac catheterization -- moving a stent into his heart to open the stenosis.

The blood work comes back and it turns out Bob is a type II diabetic -- his glucose numbers are through the roof.

This episode costs $75,000. The tests. The equipment. The doctors. The nurses. The procedure. The time in the hospital.

And then there is the ongoing cost of attempting to control his diabetes.

**************

You, who have exercised, have eaten healthy, have seen a doctor regularly...you get your paycheck. Your taxes are itemized. One line item is your tax for the universal health care. One of the ways to see how your health care tax dollars are used to is to go to a governmental web site. There you can find details on every patient the health service has treated.

You scan the list. You click on Bob Jones.

You read about his care. You read about how he has behaved for 30 years.

And you think...the money I HAVE EARNED has gone to take care of HIM!!

As the psychiatrist might say during therapy, "How do you feel about that?"

Post: #75

(03-05-2013 11:00 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 07:58 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  I dislike the idea of paying extra tax for people to get free healthcare when they make bad decisions.

Here's a thought experiment for those who like the idea of government run universal health care.

Bob Jones comes into the emergency room...wheezing, short of breath.

He is 48. He is 50 lbs overweight. He hasn't exercised in 30 years. His diet is terrible -- he eats tons of processed food, loads of simple carbs. For years, he thinks lettuce and green vegetables are for rabbits.

He has never seen a doctor until now.

The tests are run, the blood is drawn. Bob has had a myocardial infarction.

He remains in the hospital for 3 days. The cardiologist decides he needs an a cardiac catheterization -- moving a stent into his heart to open the stenosis.

The blood work comes back and it turns out Bob is a type II diabetic -- his glucose numbers are through the roof.

This episode costs $75,000. The tests. The equipment. The doctors. The nurses. The procedure. The time in the hospital.

And then there is the ongoing cost of attempting to control his diabetes.

**************

You, who have exercised, have eaten healthy, have seen a doctor regularly...you get your paycheck. Your taxes are itemized. One line item is your tax for the universal health care. One of the ways to see how your health care tax dollars are used to is to go to a governmental web site. There you can find details on every patient the health service has treated.

You scan the list. You click on Bob Jones.

You read about his care. You read about how he has behaved for 30 years.

And you think...the money I HAVE EARNED has gone to take care of HIM!!

As the psychiatrist might say during therapy, "How do you feel about that?"

tenderman, your example is very valid and a good example of how you are subsidizing others who may be stupid in UHC. I want to present you with a counter to this, however.

I posted this before but nobody answered, what happens if you are one of the survivors from the Dark Knight Rises shooting and you are lucky enough to survive you get hit with a hefty bill because you don't have insurance (probably in the hundreds of thousands). Is that really your fault that some dumbass shot you while you were watching a movie and you were lucky enough to survive?

Second example (this actually happened at my dad's work). Some guy in his 20s who was working part-time and also going to school part-time was diagnosed with cancer. He ended up dying but he was able to prolong his life for 2 years without going broke.

My point is what is you actually live healthy like you said and you or your family relative have cancer or some other hideous disease but can't afford the extremely expensive health care. Would you be okay with saying in that instance let him/her die or go broke because of the medical bill?

In the end, both, UHC and private health care have drawbacks and you can provide scenarios like we both just did but I prefer the security of people not having to worry about not receiving adequate health care due to money.

Now in the USA, there might be other factors that can make it unworkable such as the huge population, illegal immigration, and insurance lobbyists but that's a separate debate altogether.