RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


rulemylife -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 12:46:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I have no insurance. Just hope that I dont get sick anytime in the next few years.


And what if you have an accident?

Things happen.




tazzygirl -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 1:56:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Oh noes, you're all gonna die before you can collect your sos security!!!! The sky is falling, run for your lives!


Collecting yours already, rob?




Politesub53 -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 2:04:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

That's easy, where would you rather be a doctor, France, England or the U.S.?
Doctors in the U.S. make far more than their European counterparts.


And you pay the bill, via insurance. Do you not think a more affordable type of medical care is preferable ?




subrob1967 -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 2:10:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Collecting yours already, rob?


Nah, I have a nice government pension to enjoy in 13 years.




mnottertail -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 2:12:56 PM)

We should look into those, lotta slackers looking for that government pension entitlement, I think we should cut the shit outta those, say to around 500 a month  who gives a fuck what we promised, just like VA care for veterans.

Fuck em. 




tazzygirl -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 2:56:23 PM)

~FR

No, here is what pops and the rest are so afraid of.

The government provides health insurance. There will be a rush on Drs. Which means when pops needs his annual, he will have to wait a while. Of course, no one heard of scheduling such a thing, they want it now.

None see the potential for decreased costs in hospital stays that will drop dramatically with preventative and better curative care.

No one wants to admit the savings in sick time alone will help many companies. Sick employees cost companies in many ways.

They still are in denial about who actually pays for that health care that isnt covered by now. Curious no one questions their hospital bills when an ER vists for stiches costs over 500 a stich.

They absolutely dont want to discuss how many HMO's and insurance companies, not to mention pharamceutical companies they have on their 401k plans or investment portfolios.

As someone pointed out, and i believe it was Ken (if not, i appologize) dialysis is the fast lane to disability. Its cost is also astronomical. The cost of inserting a shunt, the three times a week runs. The complications from being sick, from shunt failures... the costs go on and on. In 2000, the cost of running a dialysis patient on vacation without insurance in Myrtle Beach was 800 a pop. 10 years later, i can almost guarentee you the costs have doubled. And many many times it could have been prevented. We havent even discussed the costs of transplants.

Its easier to cover the discomfort of such discussions by taking out the human element. By discussing the costs by GDP. By glossing over the individuality and addressing the "bottom line" of money ... Its become "I got mine, fuck you" kind of debate, with those who have it freely given making decisions for those who have no access. I have shown where companies are dropping insurance for their employees and have been doing so since 2000. I have shown where rates have been going up since the same time. Blaming either of these events on the current health care law is just plain wrong.

The elderly are automatically covered, most free if they have paid into the system.

Chips is free to most, and a sliding pay scale for those who make more money.

Meicaid is available to those who qualify... pregnant, blind, over 65, children, disabled...

Our representatives get it free.... yet no one seems to object.

The only group not eligible is the group that is the backbone of this country. 18-64.... our workforce. 16% have no insurance...48,000,000... and another 35% underinsured (Think day one insurance offered by many companies as a cheap fix that pays no real benefits) 105,000,000. This is who has those percentages. Its not the under 18 group, or the over 65 group, but those inbetween have the 16% uninsured and 35% underinsured.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Out of a population (2009) of 307,006,550
the under 18 is 24.3%
the 65 and older is 12.9%
The 18-64 age group comrises of 62.8% of the population
192,796,000 of the population is between 18 and 65.

(And, because there will be some who complain that the percentages only relate to those between the 18-84 age group, that is the figures im going with. The above is based upon the total population.)

And 31 million out of 192 million have no insurance. almost 25% of the population that is the work force of this country have no insurance. Another 67 million are underinsured.

Thats half the workforce.

But, they would have you believe its all ok, that this segement of the population is "ok" and well insured and happy with their insurance.

This is what no one wants to talk about.




rulemylife -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 3:56:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Nah, I have a nice government pension to enjoy in 13 years.



Why doesn't that surprise me?

But let's make sure we vote for limited government.

[sm=biggrin.gif]






tazzygirl -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 6:18:47 PM)

amazing how the truth shuts people up.




Brain -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 8:41:25 PM)

Maybe we should let policemen and firemen blackmail us the way like insurance companies and doctors do. So when, for example, a doctor's house is burning down the firemen should say to the doctors, ’‘how much are you going to pay me to put out the fire?”What I'm saying is why not privatize fire and police departments just the way some want medicine privatized?

Wouldn't you love to have a policemen ask you, “how much are you going to pay me to arrest that guy who punched you and broke your nose?” Of course I'm being sarcastic, privatizing police and fire departments is ridiculous. Privatized health care is just as ridiculous, unfortunately some people don't get it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Healthcare costs in Western countries average about 7-8% of GDP, excepting the USA where it's about 15%. Most Western countries have universal health schemes where it seems about a third of Americans have no healthcare coverage.

I have never been able to understand why Americans like paying twice as much as comparable countries for a lot less healthcare. Perhaps someone could enlighten me


That's easy, where would you rather be a doctor, France, England or the U.S.?
Doctors in the U.S. make far more than their European counterparts.





Aylee -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 9:55:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Of course I'm being sarcastic, privatizing police and fire departments is ridiculous. Privatized health care is just as ridiculous, unfortunately some people don't get it.


Psst, Brain, we do have both privatized police and fire. 




Termyn8or -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 10:41:15 PM)

FR

How long did it take y'all to figure this out ?

T




Charles6682 -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 11:33:12 PM)

It's amazing,alot of neo-cons I've come across are on some from of governement help.Quite pathetic really,just a bunch of scumbag's who only think of themselve's.As long as I have mine,to hell with everyone else.




tweakabelle -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 11:45:56 PM)

The point you make about preventative care is an excellent one, imho. The approach you suggest will drive down costs and reduce stresses on healthcare systems wherever it is adopted. However, I am unable to see how it might lead to an immediate and dramatic increase of the numbers of Americans enjoying healthcare coverage. Over time it undoubtedly will, but in the short term I just can't see it. Am I missing something?

I am happy to go with the numbers you quoted. (which incidentally correspond roughly to the numbers I quoted originally). For me the point is not to get the exact number precisely correct but to agree that tens of millions don't currently enjoy healthcare coverage. So I'm glad we can agree on that too.

The figures astonish me. Where I live (Australia) there is a universal free (at delivery point) high quality health care system. Those who want additional cover have the option of private health insurance. There is also a scheme that ensures all medicines are affordable to those who need them (which, if you are interested you can read about here: http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/pbs/index.jsp ).

While these schemes are far from perfect, no Australian resident is ever bankrupted because of medical costs, no one ever dies or is denied treatment because they aren't covered by or can't afford appropriate medical care. Most Australians regard this as an entitlement (if not a right).

A 1997 study carried out by Professors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (New England Journal of Medicine 336, no. 11 [1997]) "concluded that almost 100,000 people died in the United States each year because of lack of needed care—three times the number of people who died of AIDs." The Inhuman State of U.S. Health Care, Monthly Review, Vicente Navarro, September 2003.

Yet Americans spend about twice as much on healthcare than Australians - $7920 per capita or 16% of GDP vs $3137 per capita or 8.7% of GDP in 2005.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cross-country_comparisons)
Sorry these are broad figures, but they are the only ones I found. Again the precise numbers are of lesser importance than the overall picture they draw.

It seems to me that someone is getting a very raw deal, and someone else is doing very nicely. Previous posters have blamed vested interests and the medical profession's greed for this situation. Do you share this perspective?

Numerous other countries have been able to deliver high class healthcare systems without generating the problems referred to above. Why does the US model generate these outcomes?

Would Americans be better off if they too regarded universal healthcare as an entitlement? Or as a minimum standard any affluent country should achieve?





Termyn8or -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/18/2010 11:48:27 PM)

Put your morals away 6682. Up until about six months ago I never took anything. Now I want it all. After they bailed out these assholes with TARP and whatnot, I want mine. Fukit. Get all you can get.

My ancestors would roll over in their graves if they knew how I intend to fuck the system right up the ass.

And you know what, if a million people did and were as successful as I, or more so, it wouldn't be a flea on a dog's ass compared to our money that they give to their buddies. Fuck them all. I am not playing around.

T




Charles6682 -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/19/2010 12:37:53 AM)

I'm not saying accepting help in this economy is a bad thing.It's the people who complain about governement help and yet turn's around knock's the same goverment that help's them.That's like the Republican's who knock the stimulus bill,yet turn their back and ask's for some money from the same stimulus bill they were bashing .




DomYngBlk -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/19/2010 5:18:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I have no insurance. Just hope that I dont get sick anytime in the next few years.


And what if you have an accident?

Things happen.



Then I pray that it doesn't require me to step into an emergency room. If that happens then I am doubly fucked since the Hospital will be after all that I now own.




DomYngBlk -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/19/2010 5:22:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Collecting yours already, rob?


Nah, I have a nice government pension to enjoy in 13 years.



Not another right wing nut with that has sucked off the Gov't their whole lives and now wants to complain about the Gov't? Fuck me rob but do you see anything wrong with that equation? I vote to revoke your Gov't pension cause, sorry, we need to balance the fucking budget and we need yours. Have fun.




tazzygirl -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/19/2010 6:12:59 AM)

quote:

The point you make about preventative care is an excellent one, imho. The approach you suggest will drive down costs and reduce stresses on healthcare systems wherever it is adopted. However, I am unable to see how it might lead to an immediate and dramatic increase of the numbers of Americans enjoying healthcare coverage. Over time it undoubtedly will, but in the short term I just can't see it. Am I missing something?


Preventative care is the least expensive way to go. But it wont reduce costs initially, it will drive them up in the short run. It will also be a huge strain to our health care system.

What you are missing, i believe, is that people are unable to afford something, they do without. When they can afford it, they enjoy. Health care is no different. Sure, there will always be that small percentage that wont see a Dr no matter who pays for it... sorta like having zero unemployment is a myth. But, it seems people have gotten it into their heads that these 16% will hit every Dr in the country, making access to their favorite Dr impossible. The reality is that some Drs may see a 20% increase in business... initally... others maybe only 10%. Its not like 31 million people are going to be hitting select Dr offices.

Its time people stopped being Sneeches.





allthatjaz -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/19/2010 7:28:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


The figures astonish me. Where I live (Australia) there is a universal free (at delivery point) high quality health care system. Those who want additional cover have the option of private health insurance. There is also a scheme that ensures all medicines are affordable to those who need them (which, if you are interested you can read about here: http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/pbs/index.jsp ).

While these schemes are far from perfect, no Australian resident is ever bankrupted because of medical costs, no one ever dies or is denied treatment because they aren't covered by or can't afford appropriate medical care. Most Australians regard this as an entitlement (if not a right).



In the UK our employers automatically deduct a a percentage of our salary. This contribution which is between 1% and I think 11% depending on your earnings and after you have earned a specific amount, goes towards whats called National Health Insurance. We don't have a choice, we have to pay it. We never see the money and its such a small amount that we hardly notice.
If your unemployed and on benefits, your NI is paid for you.

Just like Australia, nobody ever goes untreated. If you need a few stitches, if you need major heart surgery, if you need ongoing kidney dialysis or anything else medical then your get it and you don't end up with a bill. The one thing you do pay for unless your on benefits, under 18, pregnant, over 65 or other exemptions, is your prescription for medication (medication given within a hospital is not billed to you) and a prescription costs around £6 or £7.

We do have private medical insurance in the UK but if you choose to go privately, you still have to pay your NI contributions. This ensures that anyone who falls behind with their private policy are still insured under the public system.
Private insurance is only purchased by about 8% of the UK and most of that comes from work bonus insensitive. Because the UK hasn't been uniformly privatized, insurance companies can only offer so much. Things like, quicker medical response to non emergency patients and plush hospitals with fancy menus which does entice some but not many. This keeps private insurance down.

I recently decided to go and see a gynecologist privately because I didn't want to go on a waiting list (a big problem with the NHS). I don't have private insurance and so I had to foot the bill. The total cost of 2 consultations and blood tests cost me £175.
I would be interested to know how that compares to the US?





mnottertail -> RE: World comparison shows U.S. healthcare lacking (11/19/2010 7:54:04 AM)

Thats round 279 dollars.  The single appointment is around 100 dollars.  A blood test depending is 80-300 dollars.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875