Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Edit: This is a thread on how it would affect the economy..and not about any moral issues.

For the Obama and Clinton supporters. Since the economy is in a shit storm how would implementing UHC actually do anything other then harm the economy? Could ending the war be the answer? South Korea isnt at war (well..technically I guess they are..), neither is Japan and the UK's economy shouldnt be taking too much of a strain from what they are doing over there..so I doubt thats the answer.

Any suggestions or ideas?

The UK healthcare system:
1. http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/03/08/UKCrisis/
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...uk.topstories3
"Labour's flagship health service reforms were in disarray last night, as the head of the NHS, Sir Nigel Crisp, quit in the face of increasing deficits which the government admitted would breach its forecast of ?200m... Estimates of the final deficit suggest it could rise to as high as ?800m."

"The current crisis...predicting that the year-end deficit for the NHS could run as high as $1.6 billion dollars."


South Korea
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1447690
"After 1996, Korean NHI began to develop significant deficits. From 1996 to the present, total health expenditures have exceeded total income... Although government continually raised the mandatory insurance premiums to make up for the deficit, many health policy experts predicted that increased governmental funding would not solve the problem."


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=89626309
"The Japanese Health Ministry tightly controls the price of health care down to the smallest detail." "But 50 percent of hospitals are in financial deficit now."

if everyone had access to health care, there would be fewer sick people.. and fewer people therefore off work through illness.. it would also be easier to find out who is pretending to be sick so they can claim any sickness benefits which you may get over there... if the system was run properly! fewer sick people means more workers, which means greater production which means greater profitability which means less reliance on government money.. etc etc...

Originally posted by KidRock
Edit: This is a thread on how it would affect the economy..and not about any moral issues.

For the Obama and Clinton supporters. Since the economy is in a shit storm how would implementing UHC actually do anything other then harm the economy? Could ending the war be the answer? South Korea isnt at war (well..technically I guess they are..), neither is Japan and the UK's economy shouldnt be taking too much of a strain from what they are doing over there..so I doubt thats the answer.

Any suggestions or ideas?
Despite your desperate edit, I think the deal with universal health care is that it helps the people, not the economy. A more pressing issue for the economy would be something like...ooo, I don't know...maybe a never-ending war with spiraling costs creating huge deficits.

Good try, though.

Originally posted by big gay kirk
if everyone had access to health care, there would be fewer sick people.. and fewer people therefore off work through illness.. it would also be easier to find out who is pretending to be sick so they can claim any sickness benefits which you may get over there... if the system was run properly! fewer sick people means more workers, which means greater production which means greater profitability which means less reliance on government money.. etc etc... Obviously wrong in practice.

Cute theory though.


I am sure we all agree that the US is ****ed beyond believe though. National Health Care would actually be an improvement there. Kinda how trading AIDS for Brain Cancer might be an improvement

US expenditure per capita on healthcare is actually ironically the highest in the world.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
US expenditure per capita on healthcare is actually ironically the highest in the world.

Exactly. It makes no sense whatsoever.

as i said.. if the system is run properly it should work... never seen one run properly though....

Originally posted by big gay kirk
as i said.. if the system is run properly it should work... never seen one run properly though.... Nah, even then it would go contrary to market forces, thereby doing more harm. I suppose if the government was all knowing it might work, just don't know any government that is.

I am confused as to why you would ask the question like this. As Floo said, the idea is to help the people.

Economies are means to an end, you understand. They give countries the ability to thrive as civilisations. Health Care is one of those end results.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I am confused as to why you would ask the question like this. As Floo said, the idea is to help the people.

Economies are means to ann endm, you understand. They give countries the ability to thrive as civilisations. Health Care is one of those end results. The point though is that in a free economy most people might very well get better coverage than in a Universal Health Care system.

Well that might have been your point, but that wasn't actually what kidrock was asking about. He's asking how it would help the economy, the simple answer is that it isn't meant to.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The point though is that in a free economy most people might very well get better coverage than in a Universal Health Care system. The WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies disagree however, in comparing the implementation of the systems currently in place.

And concurring with the above comments, the premise of the thread is pretty dumb.

if it's run properly then it's not a problem...the problem with the UK NHS is that there is a huge amount of money spent on bureaucracy rather than so called "front line" care....there was at one point, in one hospital in England...4 admin staff for every one medical staff...

alot of this is because when things go wrong...the every increasing demand for compensation drains the resources...so hospitals hire legal teams and administrators in order to limit the damage...and then there is less money available for front line services...and thus more mistakes are made...etc etc

the argument, from a UK perspective, that ending the involment in the iraq and afganistan would increase money available for the NHS is spurios because the NHS is the single biggest budget in the UK economy...

roughly they are 102 billion for the NHS and 36 Billion for the M.O.D

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well that might have been your point, but that wasn't actually what kidrock was asking about. He's asking how it would help the economy, the simple answer is that it isn't meant to. Haha, yeah, didn't mean to defend Kid Rock.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies disagree however, in comparing the implementation of the systems currently in place.

And concurring with the above comments, the premise of the thread is pretty dumb.

What free market systems did they compare? Any first world countries?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What free market systems did they compare? Any first world countries? I don't know how free you need the market to be for healthcare to be completely free market; I don't know if one exists at all. But the most highly privatised healthcare system in the world (as far as I'm aware) the US, was compared to other nations:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678
And their not particularly getting their value for money.

The WHO study is far more comprehensive comparing something around 190 countries, but is also more dated I think it was the WHO annual report from 2000.

stupidest thread ever.

I look forward to the involvment of our Canadian members. I'm interested to hear their perspective.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't know how free you need the market to be for healthcare to be completely free market; I don't know if one exists at all. But the most highly privatised healthcare system in the world (as far as I'm aware) the US, was compared to other nations:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678
And their not particularly getting their value for money.

The WHO study is far more comprehensive comparing something around 190 countries, but is also more dated I think it was the WHO annual report from 2000. Oh, but as you rightly pointed out the US spends the most out of any country on their health care. It's hardly a free market at all, in fact, by standards of free market supporters it's probably the least free...

One of the things about National Health Care, in England at least, according to that **** Michael Moore at least, is that if doctors get only paid like 30 000 (random number, whatever it is), what really stops the good ones from going to the US or maybe even Germany to make 5 times that? Just strikes me as odd. Also, the waiting times for not absolutely urgent issues is just mind boggling to me.

Point is how does Obama plan to get out Economy back on track and stabalized with programs like UHC..which shown by the links obviously hurts the economy even more.

Sure it may be something "for the people", thats all great and jolly, but at what cost? Should we go into a great depression with people living in hoovervilles on the streets but chanting "At least we have healthcare!"?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Despite your desperate edit, I think the deal with universal health care is that it helps the people, not the economy. A more pressing issue for the economy would be something like...ooo, I don't know...maybe a never-ending war with spiraling costs creating huge deficits.

Good try, though.

Desperate edit? The edit was done before anyone even posted in the thread..thanks though.

Originally posted by KidRock
Point is how does Obama plan to get out Economy back on track and stabalized with programs like UHC..which shown by the links obviously hurts the economy even more.

Sure it may be something "for the people", thats all great and jolly, but at what cost? Should we go into a great depression with people living in hoovervilles on the streets but chanting "At least we have healthcare!"?



Desperate edit? The edit was done before anyone even posted in the thread..thanks though. But you are already paying. A shitload of money actually.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But you are already paying. A shitload of money actually.

Do you mean for healthcare for myself?

Originally posted by KidRock
Do you mean for healthcare for myself? Nah, for Health Care for other people.

The United States is alone among developed nations with the absence of a universal health care system. Healthcare in the U.S. does, however, have significant publicly funded components. Medicare covers the elderly and disabled with a historical work record, Medicaid is available for some, but not all of the poor, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program covers children of low-income families. The Veterans Health Administration directly provides health care to U.S. military veterans through a nationwide network of government hospitals; while active duty service members, retired service members and their dependents are eligible for benefits through TRICARE. Together, these tax-financed programs cover about 27% of the population and make the government the largest health insurer in the nation. In 2001, only the governments of Iceland and Norway spent more per capita on healthcare.


Do I misread something in that? I am wondering now... is the US Government spending more on Health Care than any other country or are the people in the US spending more per capita than the governments of other countries do?

Oh yeah, and what a complete mess it is..so how logical is it to add MORE people to the program?

Originally posted by KidRock
Oh yeah, and what a complete mess it is..so how logical is it to add MORE people to the program? I am with you that I think National Health Care is shit. Though, the way the UK does it, for example, would at least be better than the way you do it. You now, hurting the economy PLUS having people die on the streets...just not that cool

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am with you that I think National Health Care is shit. Though, the way the UK does it, for example, would at least be better than the way you do it. You now, hurting the economy PLUS having people die on the streets...just not that cool

Where does it say though that its my job to pay for all of these peoples health care? I don't feel I should be taxed and punished to pay for a drug dealers health care when his dealings go wrong..maybe others do, but I really dont feel thats where my money should go.

There are better ways of doing it as well. Maybe set it up where the health care will cover operations >2000$. That way we wont be paying for every gang bangers bullet wound or prostitutes herpes medicine.

Also bring in the QUALITY of health care, it will go down with UHC.

I should pay for my own healthcare and thats it, I don't think the government should have to baby everybody, some feel this country must be too weak to survive on its own though.

Characterising universal health care as catering for drug dealers is a feeble way of arguing the point, kid rock- even if people agreed that was undesierable, which is moral nonsense, the fact is the vast majority of such spending goes on everyday people who are ill.

Perhaps you don't think your tax dollars should be spent on police either? Perhaps you think that is a punishment also, because careless people need the police to help them sometimes? Why should you have to pay for their folly, hmm? It's broken reasoning. Taxes pay for public services. Your idea that taxes should only pay for things that directly benefit you is obscene.

Frankly, I don't see why your opinion of where that money should go is a worthwhile consideration. The need is there, and your opinion contributes to withholding aid from the needy. As I have mentioned several times before on this debate, people look at the US in horror for the way it deals with healthcare- it's relic from less civilised times.

The right to health care is a universal one, part of the basic duty of care a Government has for its citizens. That your access to such care is entirely conditioned on your ability to pay for it- as it is in the US- then that right is not being met. The lack of that in the US is a black mark against it.

Your idea that the richest country in the world cannot afford it, when many poorer countries do, is a nonsense also.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Perhaps you don't think your tax dollars should be spent on police either? Perhaps you think that is a punishment also, because careless people need the police to help them sometimes? Why should you have to pay for their folly, hmm? It's broken reasoning. Taxes pay for public services. Your idea that taxes should only pay for things that directly benefit you is obscene.


Not true at all. The police are a necessity to society, the police help everybody everyday, even indirectly. Just them being there on the streets is helping me and everybody else by deterring would be criminals. Even if I never have to call the police, I am still using their service and my tax dollars are actually doing something.

On the other hand I could be paying thousands of dollars for a service that isn't benefiting me at all but at the same time benefiting people who may not work at all, or those who abuse the system such as the millions of smokers in America who may end up in the hospital from pretty much harming themselves, all on my dollar.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

The right to health care is a universal one, part of the basic duty of care a Government has for its citizens. That your access to such care is entirely conditioned on your ability to pay for it- as it is in the US- then that right is not being met. The lack of that in the US is a black mark against it.


People may have the right to health care, but it isn't my duty to pay for it..which is the way the government would be paying for it, my tax dollars. Whats next? Will the government keep taking more money from me to insure everyone has a house? Then more money to make sure everyone has plenty of food? Then more taxes to insure everyone has clothes to wear? Then what other 'universal right' will be brought up which will be taken out of my paycheck?



Originally posted by Ushgarak

Your idea that the richest country in the world cannot afford it, when many poorer countries do, is a nonsense also.

Like what other countries? Norway with a population of 4 million people? Or Denmark with 5 million people? New York City has a higher population then these two countries. What works in a smaller country may not work in a bigger one.

Isn't the real question...how can the economy help UHC?

Originally posted by KidRock
Not true at all. The police are a necessity to society, the police help everybody everyday, even indirectly. Just them being there on the streets is helping me and everybody else by deterring would be criminals. Even if I never have to call the police, I am still using their service and my tax dollars are actually doing something.

On the other hand I could be paying thousands of dollars for a service that isn't benefiting me at all but at the same time benefiting people who may not work at all, or those who abuse the system such as the millions of smokers in America who may end up in the hospital from pretty much harming themselves, all on my dollar.



People may have the right to health care, but it isn't my duty to pay for it..which is the way the government would be paying for it, my tax dollars. Whats next? Will the government keep taking more money from me to insure everyone has a house? Then more money to make sure everyone has plenty of food? Then more taxes to insure everyone has clothes to wear? Then what other 'universal right' will be brought up which will be taken out of my paycheck?





Like what other countries? Norway with a population of 4 million people? Or Denmark with 5 million people? New York City has a higher population then these two countries. What works in a smaller country may not work in a bigger one.

the irony being that you dont seem to complain when Billions of tax dollars get spent on other countries healthcare in the form of aid or even writing off loans to other countries...i take it you dont object to that but to object to tax money being spent on your fellow citizens

Kidrock - You don't think access for all to medical care benefits you?

Need obviously doesn't equal entitlement.

Universal Health care = more alive, healthy people who don't have to spend all their money in order to not die.

More alive healthy people with money = more spending.

More spending = better economy.

Better economy = Bardock loves men

Originally posted by BackFire
Universal Health care = more alive, healthy people who don't have to spend all their money in order to not die.

More alive healthy people with money = more spending.

More spending = better economy.

Better economy = Bardock loves men

Aww, it would be so nice if that was true.

At least one part is.

Originally posted by BackFire
At least one part is.

2 even. I think.

Well, I'm on a roll.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do I misread something in that? I am wondering now... is the US Government spending more on Health Care than any other country or are the people in the US spending more per capita than the governments of other countries do?

I am unfamiliar with the majority of healthcare systems in other nations, but I do live in the virtual vacuum of America. In this country, our healthcare system feeds, not only on the sick, but on the healthy. Our system is set up as a response to our lifestyle. And our lifestyle is popping pills we likely don't need, sucking down red meat that is loaded with hormones and anti-biotics, taking medications for diseases that were developed before the illness was discovered, injecting our children with vaccine cocktails that make them dumber than a baby born in a lead paint factory and chemically treating our food so it will keep in a freezer for a year before we microwave it and feed it to our family.

The truely sick part is that all it takes for a person to improve their own life and reduce their dependance on this crap is educating themselves and looking at a food label before they eat it. Don't want George Lucas to make anymore shitty movies? Don't go see them. Don't want shit and drugs in your food? Don't buy it. And considering the annual budget of the US government, effective and beneficial universal healthcare can be paid for at a fraction of the current tax rate.

Descent, affordable healthcare would be a benefit to the economy of this country. But it can't begin and end there. This country has to stop poisoning itself before the economy will benefit.

As a response to the question posed, "How will universal healthcare benefit the economy?", one must answer the question, "How will it harm the economy?" if handled correctly?

This nation is drowning under the cost of government mandated insurance and it's own need for healthcare and this forces a business to take up the responsability of providing health insurance. And, as it is, dental insurance is a luxury not enjoyed by most Americans. Well, your teeth are a HUGE part of an individuals health.

Yeah, I went off from my scheduled response to your comment. Buthealthcare is an issue that effects practically every other bottom line in this country.

Originally posted by jaden101
the irony being that you dont seem to complain when Billions of tax dollars get spent on other countries healthcare in the form of aid or even writing off loans to other countries...i take it you dont object to that but to object to tax money being spent on your fellow citizens

I am all for my tax dollars paying to help care for the people of natural disasters such as the Tsunami and hurricane Katrina..both of which I would even donate money to help the cause. But of course like what would happen with UHC eventually, people are now abusing the Katrina funds. In the long run I believe UHC would go to shit.

Originally posted by BackFire
At least one part is.

lmao

Originally posted by Devil King


Descent, affordable healthcare would be a benefit to the economy of this country. But it can't begin and end there. This country has to stop poisoning itself before the economy will benefit.



Ding! ****ing ding!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, but as you rightly pointed out the US spends the most out of any country on their health care. It's hardly a free market at all, in fact, by standards of free market supporters it's probably the least free...

One of the things about National Health Care, in England at least, according to that **** Michael Moore at least, is that if doctors get only paid like 30 000 (random number, whatever it is), what really stops the good ones from going to the US or maybe even Germany to make 5 times that? Just strikes me as odd. Also, the waiting times for not absolutely urgent issues is just mind boggling to me. Bardockins, you misunderstood what I meant by expenditure, expenditure figures take into account both private and public expenditure and private expenditure in the US per capita alone is still greater than the OECD average for total expenditure per capita.
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/44/39092204.pdf

So neither the private or public healthcare sector in the US seems to be effectively utilizing the level of expenditure; when something like 50 million Americans don't have proper access to healthcare. Many other developed countries are spending less per capita in total, than either the public or private expenditure in the US, and apparently according to WHO and the Commonwealth Fund achieving better results. Less doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita, lower gains in life expectancy and drops in infant mortality.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Bardockins, you misunderstood what I meant by expenditure, expenditure figures take into account both private and public expenditure and private expenditure in the US per capita alone is still greater than the OECD average for total expenditure per capita.
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/44/39092204.pdf

So neither the private or public healthcare sector in the US seems to be effectively utilizing the level of expenditure; when something like 50 million Americans don't have proper access to healthcare. Many other developed countries are spending less per capita in total, than either the public or private expenditure in the US, and apparently according to WHO and the Commonwealth Fund achieving better results. Less doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita, lower gains in life expectancy and drops in infant mortality.

I guess I must be misunderstanding what you are trying to say. As stated before, I am aware of the problems the (unfree) US Health Care has. I am aware that the public sector is one of the top spenders on Health Care per head already, I didn't know how the private compares to that, but I can imagine that they as well pay more than most European governments. But, that's also what I have said, I am of the opinion that a National Health Care like in Britain or a semi Health Care system like we have it in Germany (though, really, also pretty shit) would be a strong improvement for the United States, which have a idiotic para-communist corporate system. I, personally, am of the opinion that a free market without government interference whatrsoever would be quite able to provide much better health care on average than a National Health Care system, but as for the US we are on the same page, it would be an improvement, though likely headed for collapse, like the European versions are.


Same to DK. I agree with what you said. I am not speaking out for the US system. No one in their right mind should.

K, so, I found one of the solutions to our healthcare problems:

http://gizmodo.com/5450150/in-early-tests-99-wii-balance-board-outperforms-17885-medical-rig



So, apparently, some medical equipment is way over-priced.



I heard about a similar situation with this bone density test machine thing. The new method/machine cost like $300, and the old method/machine cost over $15,000. They found the new method and machine to be just as effective, but the manufacturers pushed really hard to keep the old machine cause it made them tons of money and going to the new way would cost a lot, or create competition. So what did the old manufacturers do? They tried to discredit the new method/machine over and over again, despite multiple, clear, empirical studies showing that the old way was a waste of money.



Now, I heard somewhere that the medical equipment was one of the high costs of healthcare. I'm not implying or saying that the above 2 examples prove that it's a bunch of ridiculously overpriced machines, but I am saying that there are probably lots and lots of examples like the 2 above, of stupid machines. No one knows the wiser, either.



So, couple that (finding stupidly overpriced machines) with a cap on how much can be sued for in medicine, and we may have found over 5% medical cost problems.
awesome

Originally posted by KidRock
Edit: This is a thread on how it would affect the economy..and not about any moral issues.

For the Obama and Clinton supporters. Since the economy is in a shit storm how would implementing UHC actually do anything other then harm the economy? Could ending the war be the answer? South Korea isnt at war (well..technically I guess they are..), neither is Japan and the UK's economy shouldnt be taking too much of a strain from what they are doing over there..so I doubt thats the answer.

Any suggestions or ideas?

The UK healthcare system:
1. http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/03/08/UKCrisis/
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...uk.topstories3
"Labour's flagship health service reforms were in disarray last night, as the head of the NHS, Sir Nigel Crisp, quit in the face of increasing deficits which the government admitted would breach its forecast of ?200m... Estimates of the final deficit suggest it could rise to as high as ?800m."

"The current crisis...predicting that the year-end deficit for the NHS could run as high as $1.6 billion dollars."


South Korea
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1447690
"After 1996, Korean NHI began to develop significant deficits. From 1996 to the present, total health expenditures have exceeded total income... Although government continually raised the mandatory insurance premiums to make up for the deficit, many health policy experts predicted that increased governmental funding would not solve the problem."


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=89626309
"The Japanese Health Ministry tightly controls the price of health care down to the smallest detail." "But 50 percent of hospitals are in financial deficit now."

It wont help the economy Kidrock, just further harm it. Now lets be happy it's resting in the same place Ted Kennedy is.

I'd rather have a bad economy with free healthcare than a good economy with useless, overpriced healthcare.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'd rather have a bad economy with free healthcare than a good economy with useless, overpriced healthcare.
How dare you blaspheme against our god, The Invisible Hand! You're insolence will be punished with an $8 an hour job and $15,000 in credit card debt to pay off!!! Now go die, peasant!

psh, chump change.

The main problem with US healthcare is the lack of a centralized insurance system and the almost complete absence of evidenced based medicine.

These two are the key and the lock.

The problem with the US system is that companies have a profit incentive to not actually provide you with service.

centralizaed insurance takes care of that part...they have nowhere to run.

I'm not familiar with "centralized insurance" as a term... do you mean government-run insurance? Because yes, that would take care of that particular problem.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'd rather have a bad economy with free healthcare than a good economy with useless, overpriced healthcare.

What is free health care?

Originally posted by KidRock
What is free health care?
Healthcare that's guaranteed to me as part of the "service set" the government provides.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Healthcare that's guaranteed to me as part of the "service set" the government provides.

And how is that free if the government uses your money to pay for it?

Because even if someone can't pay, they still get it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because even if someone can't pay, they still get it.

But other people are paying for it.

I know. And that's a great thing.

So then it's not free healthcare at all.

And opressing the rights of others is not a great thing.

I hope Obama's new taxes encourage's tax evasion and off shore tax havens.

Massive spending + new tax evasion techniques = faster bankrupt America.

It's free for the people who need it to be free.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's free for the people who need it to be free.

No it isn't.

Bottom line. Any kind of health care that isn't absurdly expensive is against conservative principles. Read a little Edmund Burke or the political philosophies of John Adams. The whole purpose of conservatism is to "conserve" traditional values, institutions, and social hierarchies. It's a hell of a lot easier to actually do that without a middle class and when a majority of people are so overworked, sick, and underpaid that they don't have the energy to do anything about social inequality or rights or any of that. Health care would put people away from wage slavery because it would lower the costs of small businesses and the financial burden of families, and also drive up taxes, therefore drive up wages and allow for greater social mobility and actually improve the competitiveness of the US economy. Kind of like how many of the European states have economies that are starting to outcompete the US and have a very low unemployment (Germany's is 5% right now). Universal health care is bad for the economy because it'll erode away the power of the plutocracy that controls our current economy and government, so it's bad.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm not familiar with "centralized insurance" as a term... do you mean government-run insurance? Because yes, that would take care of that particular problem.

Thats a form, but its not the only one. You either have one source of insurance or all insuance agencys working under one model/system.

Originally posted by Ordo
Thats a form, but its not the only one. You either have one source of insurance or all insuance agencys working under one model/system. But it only works efficiently (or at all really) if it's either government run or non-profit by law.

Originally posted by Ordo
Thats a form, but its not the only one. You either have one source of insurance or all insuance agencys working under one model/system.
But if that's not government run, it will be even more of a problem since they will be a monopoly and can charge as much as they want.

Originally posted by KidRock
No it isn't.
Great refutation. "nuh uh".

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's free for the people who need it to be free.

Nothing is really ever free.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nothing is really ever free. Unless your rich in which case the government pays for your mistakes.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Unless your rich in which case the government pays for your mistakes.

You mean rich people like Barack Obama?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But if that's not government run, it will be even more of a problem since they will be a monopoly and can charge as much as they want.

No. Centralized does not mean one agency. If can be something like the US is proposed where you have all insurance comapnies overseen/sheparded by the USG. Thats centralization without single-payer.

Regardless, the second part of my plan is also essential. A single government run insuarance does not garuntee price control. Rationing care and the use of evidence based medicine are also essential.

But unfortunately the majority of the US population is too dumb to understand medicine.

Originally posted by Ordo
But unfortunately the majority of the US population is too dumb to understand medicine.

not just the US

Originally posted by inimalist
not just the US

Probly true, but I'll stick to what I know

Originally posted by Ordo
No. Centralized does not mean one agency. If can be something like the US is proposed where you have all insurance comapnies overseen/sheparded by the USG. Thats centralization without single-payer.

Regardless, the second part of my plan is also essential. A single government run insuarance does not garuntee price control. Rationing care and the use of evidence based medicine are also essential.

But unfortunately the majority of the US population is too dumb to understand medicine.
But that system would not work in the US, because any policies would be controlled by lobbyists.

Great talking point.

Universal healthcare would do absolutely nothing to help this country. It would just give more control to the gomment. Do you really want the Gomment deciding who is fit to live and die? Seriously...,that's what what this boils down to. Give the Frackin power back to the Doctors and hospitals.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Universal healthcare would do absolutely nothing to help this country. It would just give more control to the gomment. Do you really want the Gomment deciding who is fit to live and die? Seriously...,that's what what this boils down to. Give the Frackin power back to the Doctors and hospitals. The doctor's and hospitals never had any power in the modern era. You're using a Republican talking point. Basically, you're ignoring who in the US is most satisfied with care (Medicare, and VA recipients-government run care) and boiling it all down to the ideology of government bad, private good.
Basically, you don't want government, something with supposed checks and balances and accountability and composed of we the people in the health care business, but you are totally fine with a private insurer with no accountability, no competition, and a real financial incentive to rob and kill you to actually RATION your care.

Do you live in California? Tell me how awesome things got ten years ago when they decided they didn't want government run electricity and gave the power back to the power companies.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Universal healthcare would do absolutely nothing to help this country. It would just give more control to the gomment. Do you really want the Gomment deciding who is fit to live and die? Seriously...,that's what what this boils down to. Give the Frackin power back to the Doctors and hospitals.

Tool

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Tool

Just remember the Libertarian code people! Wanting free healthcare is nothing but stealing from hard working people, illegal downloading is just part of the quest for freedom.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Do you really want the Gomment deciding who is fit to live and die?

Do you really want some company deciding who is fit to live and die?

Yes because our all knowing god, The Invisible Hand will wisely determine who is fit for only it can fairly judge a person's worthiness by the content of his bank account.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just remember the Libertarian code people! Wanting free healthcare is nothing but stealing from hard working people, illegal downloading is just part of the quest for freedom.



Do you really want some company deciding who is fit to live and die?

Why not let each person decide? It's a thing called freedom.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why not let each person decide? It's a thing called freedom. Because each person is not a multimillionaire.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Universal healthcare would do absolutely nothing to help this country. It would just give more control to the gomment. Do you really want the Gomment deciding who is fit to live and die? Seriously...,that's what what this boils down to. Give the Frackin power back to the Doctors and hospitals.
Doctors and hospitals are part of the problem by being so prohibitively expensive that you can't pay without insurance. In Japan, the government has set amounts that doctors can charge for services, and their system works much better.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Because each person is not a multimillionaire.

Just wait.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why not let each person decide? It's a thing called freedom.

Because as we all know 100% of people can pay medical bills without insurance.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because as we all know 100% of people can pay medical bills without insurance.

Tort reform.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Tort reform. Which George W. Bush's CBO did research on in 2002 and 2004, concluding that even if you banned all legal action by patients against doctors, it would save the average american a total of $12 per year. Great ****ing savings there.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Which George W. Bush's CBO did research on in 2002 and 2004, concluding that even if you banned all legal action by patients against doctors, it would save the average american a total of $12 per year. Great ****ing savings there.

Blame Bush! I'm sick and tired of the blame Bush game. We all know that it is nothing but a pile of shit. Maybe we should put Bush back into the presidency. At least then the blame Bush game would make sense.

Once again, Shaky proves that he doesn't know how to ****ing read. The CBO is separate from the president. I was pointing out which president it was under since torte reform and generally denying peoples' rights to legal contest and representation is a republican strategy in general.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Once again, Shaky proves that he doesn't know how to ****ing read. The CBO is separate from the president. I was pointing out which president it was under since torte reform and generally denying peoples' rights to legal contest and representation is a republican strategy in general.

Is there a Democrat anywhere who can talk about the problems of today without referring to Bush? Maybe when Palin becomes president, she can actually get something done. I'm so tired of the wining.

You're starting to pull things out of your ass again. Once again I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. I am a social democrat at best (and the US doesn't really have a Social Democratic Party). The political parties in the United States meeting my views (somewhat) are the Green Party and the Democratic Socialist Party.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You're starting to pull things out of your ass again. Once again I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. I am a social democrat at best (and the US doesn't really have a Social Democratic Party). The political parties in the United States meeting my views (somewhat) are the Green Party and the Democratic Socialist Party.

...and I am not a Republican.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Blame Bush! I'm sick and tired of the blame Bush game. We all know that it is nothing but a pile of shit. Maybe we should put Bush back into the presidency. At least then the blame Bush game would make sense.
WTF, that wasn't even about blaming bush, that was about how Tort reform wouldn't help anything.

Originally posted by King Kandy
WTF, that wasn't even about blaming bush, that was about how Tort reform wouldn't help anything.

R i g h t.

Originally posted by King Kandy
WTF, that wasn't even about blaming bush, that was about how Tort reform wouldn't help anything. You don't remember Shaky's habit of responding to posts that aren't there when he gets bored or just feels like pissing everyone off?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
R i g h t.
Tort reform is a really stupid idea, anyway. As far as driving down costs of medicine, I think the best thing we could do is make public college free. Then doctors wouldn't accumulate such ridiculous student loans.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Tort reform is a really stupid idea, anyway. As far as driving down costs of medicine, I think the best thing we could do is make public college free. Then doctors wouldn't accumulate such ridiculous student loans.

Nothing is free.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You don't remember Shaky's habit of responding to posts that aren't there when he gets bored or just feels like pissing everyone off?

Please stop trolling.

Looks who's talking.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Looks who's talking.

You are personally attacking me by making accusations to other people about me. I have not attack you at any point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are personally attacking me by making accusations to other people about me. I have not attack you at any point. You have consistently made a habit of starting conflict and derailing threads by making vague attacks and responding to posts that don't exist. And you actually have attacked me several times in the past so you have no grounds for complaint when other people call you out on your bullshit.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You have consistently made a habit of starting conflict and derailing threads by making vague attacks and responding to posts that don't exist. And you actually have attacked me several times in the past so you have no grounds for complaint when other people call you out on your bullshit.

You can be an ass at times. That is not an attack, that is the truth. Now let us keep this on topic. Today, you are the person attacking me. Just because I have made the mistake in attacking you in the past does not give you liberty to attack me now.

Please show where I have attacked you today on this thread, or shut up.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can be an ass at times. That is not an attack, that is the truth. Now let us keep this on topic. Today, you are the person attacking me. Just because I have made the mistake in attacking you in the past does not give you liberty to attack me now.

Please show where I have attacked you today on this thread, or shut up. are you kidding me? the entire last page was veiled attacks and you derailing the thread by responding to posts that NOBODY POSTED as pointed out by King Kandy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nothing is free.
Cool, let's all just make vague unhelpful cliche statements like that instead of having a comprehensive discussion of the issue.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
are you kidding me? the entire last page was veiled attacks and you derailing the thread by responding to posts that NOBODY POSTED as pointed out by King Kandy.

I think you are confused. Of course I've been challenging your ideas. I have every right to challenge your ideas. What I have not been doing is attacking you personally. That is where you have gone wrong.

Forum Guidelines & Rules

Courtesy
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.

The fact you take offense at what I say, is your own problem.

Now please post were I have attack you personally.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Cool, let's all just make vague unhelpful cliche statements like that instead of having a comprehensive discussion of the issue.

The idea that school could be free, would just lead to lower quality schools, and lower quality doctors. Public schools are my example.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea that school could be free, would just lead to lower quality schools, and lower quality doctors. Public schools are my example.
No. Other countries use free public college and are doing fine.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No. Other countries use free public college and are doing fine.

I'm skeptical about that. What can you give to back that up?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you are confused. Of course I've been challenging your ideas. I have every right to challenge your ideas. What I have not been doing is attacking you personally. That is where you have gone wrong.

Forum Guidelines & Rules

Courtesy
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.

The fact you take offense at what I say, is your own problem.

Now please post were I have attack you personally. Ok, I just stop derailing threads by posting responses to things NO ONE EVER POSTED.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Ok, I just stop derailing threads by posting responses to things NO ONE EVER POSTED.

You are so disrespectful. Just admit that what I said pissed you off and then you attacked me personally.

I admit that I have do that to you in the past, and I was wrong. Now just face up to it.

I'll admit that myself and other get pissed off when your imaginary fancies ruin threads.
At least when other people disagree, they disagree with things myself or others actually posted, not figments of their imagination.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'll admit that myself and other get pissed off when your imaginary fancies ruin threads.
At least when other people disagree, they disagree with things myself or others actually posted, not figments of their imagination.

Why to be an adult.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Cool, let's all just make vague unhelpful cliche statements like that instead of having a comprehensive discussion of the issue.

Yeah, the whole close your eyes and cover your hears while screaming "It's free health care, it's good!" argument you use daily is great.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Universal healthcare would do absolutely nothing to help this country. It would just give more control to the gomment. Do you really want the Gomment deciding who is fit to live and die? Seriously...,that's what what this boils down to. Give the Frackin power back to the Doctors and hospitals.

Let me say this nicely.

You are dense.

Learn.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, the whole close your eyes and cover your hears while screaming "It's free health care, it's good!" argument you use daily is great.
WTF, every time I have actually brought up statistics (like the WHO ranking) to explain why I thought single payer healthcare is superior. You're the one who posts stupid anecdotal "this one kid died in britain" stories to prove your points.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No. Other countries use free public college and are doing fine.

I still haven't seen anything to support this. Also, I would like doctors to do better then fine.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I still haven't seen anything to support this. Also, I would like doctors to do better then fine.

Well, German University was free for years. You think Germany is not doing fine?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I still haven't seen anything to support this. Also, I would like doctors to do better then fine.
Um, I don't really see what i'm supposed to be supporting... pretty much every country in Europe uses that system, and I don't think the public colleges there are ranked any worse (I certainly haven't heard they were particularly bad). And the WHO ranks pretty much every European health care system better than the US's, so I don't really consider that even in the argument.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, I don't really see what i'm supposed to be supporting... pretty much every country in Europe uses that system, and I don't think the public colleges there are ranked any worse (I certainly haven't heard they were particularly bad). And the WHO ranks pretty much every European health care system better than the US's, so I don't really consider that even in the argument.

Ok, that is your opinion. In no way have you established that it is fact.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, that is your opinion. In no way have you established that it is fact.
Fact, what? You're the one who claimed that free public college would lead to a decline in health quality, when I have shown that it is actually seemingly the opposite according to WHO rankings. How about you back up your own theory, especially since we have high opinion of free german colleges from other poster who actually attended one.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
but you are totally fine with a private insurer with no accountability, no competition, and a real financial incentive to rob and kill you to actually RATION your care.

And you're using a libtard talking points.

They currently have:

1. Accountability.
2. Competition (but not enough in some places)
3. While rationing care is something they do, robbing and killing you (through their practices) would put them out of business and the market would take care of them.

And before you fly off the handle with something dramatic, I'm just playing devil's advocate as the conservatards have pretty much pushed me into supporting some sort of gomment/single payer option.




Originally posted by Shakyamunison


Originally posted by Darth Jello
Tool

Originally posted by Shakyamunison




LOL @ this exchange. It made me chuckle.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Doctors and hospitals are part of the problem by being so prohibitively expensive that you can't pay without insurance. In Japan, the government has set amounts that doctors can charge for services, and their system works much better.


This is a good talking point, imo. It appeals to rationality and not whining (which I'm obviously tired of).

Another excellent talking point, IMO, is using the amount of money our government currently spends, per person, on healthcare, and the total amount of money spent, per person, on healthcare.

If you compare quality of service of the US to FRANCE, we are FAR below in all categories except for one (ecology...but just barely), yet, we pay more for that poorer service.

I agree with Shaky...nothing is free...and why do WE have to adopt the systems of Europeans?

Does that mean we should throw out the senate and the President and get Prime Minister with House of Commons?

HELL EFFEN NO!

What works for them does not equal works for me.

(sorry-that should be "us" and not "me"...oh well, you guys know I'm a greedy bastard)

Originally posted by Darth Jello
We already pointed out to you that torte reform doesn't do shit but instead you interpreted that as an attack on Bush.

Oh, now you are a mind reader. You don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Which George W. Bush's CBO did research on in 2002 and 2004, concluding that even if you banned all legal action by patients against doctors, it would save the average american a total of $12 per year. Great ****ing savings there.

^ Like I believe you.

LOL

If one claims that the primary motivation of universal health care is not to generate revenue, how is this thread relevant?

Its like, "How does rain make something dry?", as if rain making something wet was a negative evaluation of its purpose.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I SPECULATED that free public college would reduce prices better than tort reform (that's why I said "I think" in the first post). Neither you nor I had any statistics to back our claims up. But, I wanted to see your reasoning that free public college results in health care quality decline, when that claim has pretty much been discredited.

I personally feel college price reduction would be the best option, based on the opinions of most doctors i'm friends with. But one thing I can tell, is that it definitely won't hurt health care quality as countries with free college actually have better health care, statistically.

Speculation is fine, but you keep making these absolute statements. Just like when you say, "free public college results in health care quality decline, when that claim has pretty much been discredited". Is this just your opinion? Are you speculating again?

Reality doesn't meet my tenuous grasp on it! Oh no!

A Proctologist could help. jk

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A Proctologist could help. jk Actually, I do have a colonoscopy tomorrow (I'm serious). My family had to pay out of pocket when I was on their insurance because they refused to cover it due to how young I was even with my mother dying being an indication of earlier testing. Now that I have Kaiser, a non-profit, I only pay 5 bucks for all my prescriptions and get to have 10 feet of hose shoved up my ass for free! I'll be sure to toast you with each glass of polyethylene glycol I have to drink tonight.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Actually, I do have a colonoscopy tomorrow (I'm serious). My family had to pay out of pocket when I was on their insurance because they refused to cover it due to how young I was even with my mother dying being an indication of earlier testing. Now that I have Kaiser, a non-profit, I only pay 5 bucks for all my prescriptions and get to have 10 feet of hose shoved up my ass for free! I'll be sure to toast you with each glass of polyethylene glycol I have to drink tonight.

Cleansing is not fun. My insurance covered it, and I'm too young. However, I would imagine that I pay a lot more for insurance then you do.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just remember the Libertarian code people! Wanting free healthcare is nothing but stealing from hard working people, illegal downloading is just part of the quest for freedom.



Do you really want some company deciding who is fit to live and die?


No, but i would like the freedom to choose my Doctors. I don't want to have to pay a fee because i happen to have a decent insurance and don't want to change to the gomments healthcare plan. Forcing someone to change or pay is detestable.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I agree with Shaky...nothing is free...and why do WE have to adopt the systems of Europeans?

Does that mean we should throw out the senate and the President and get Prime Minister with House of Commons?

HELL EFFEN NO!

What works for them does not equal works for me.

(sorry-that should be "us" and not "me"...oh well, you guys know I'm a greedy bastard)

The fact is that the US system is by far the worst health care system of any first world nation. Your people are denied cover or even outright lack it, which is an atrocious thing considering you also pay more on average than anyone else. You don't need to adopt any of the European Systems, but what is clear is that you have to change yours, it is inhumane and expensive.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Speculation is fine, but you keep making these absolute statements. Just like when you say, "free public college results in health care quality decline, when that claim has pretty much been discredited". Is this just your opinion? Are you speculating again?
No, that one is based on the WHO statistics that show many countries with free public college having better healthcare, as i've mentioned in almost every single post. It's funny the one statement you attacked (free public college reducing costs) happened to be one of the few I specifically stated was my personal view.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
No, but i would like the freedom to choose my Doctors. I don't want to have to pay a fee because i happen to have a decent insurance and don't want to change to the gomments healthcare plan. Forcing someone to change or pay is detestable.
Good thing the mandatory healthcare legislature would only apply to people with no insurance whatsoever, then. That would be pretty bad if it worked the way you thought it did.

edit

Here's one case when decision making should be left out of the Doctor's hands. My gastroenterologist is set in his stupid old ways and prescribed PEG for prep for my procedure today. Not gonna happen. Spent the night and early morning in the hospital having a small tear in my esophagus repaired and getting a blood transfusion after vomiting blood but he "can't think of anything else" to prescribe. ****ing idiot. At least I get to spend 2 days in bed eating ice cream.