RE: Universal Healthcare

RE: Universal Healthcare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

nefertari -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 5:27:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: topnswitch Lower taxes, though as a non-breeder, I've always thought it pretty unfair that I have to pay for my neighbors kids education, maybe that should be paid for by the parents (like South Africa for instance) and healthcare should be universal? It is not uncommon for there to be 100 kids to a single teacher using an abandoned train car as a classroom in South Africa. Not a good scenario. We recognized long ago that the way to a prosperous nation was through education. That is why we all pay for it. I believe it is time to realize that the same goes for healthcare.

Level -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 5:40:04 AM)
Gent, it isn't the disagreement with libertarianism or charities that I find some "not getting it", it's the way some latch on to a portion of someone's post and ignoring the rest of it. I believe in universal healthcare, I just don't know the best way to go about it, and like it or not, with our ageing societies, deficits, and looming crisis with Social Security and Medicare, we are going to find it rough going, and sooner, than later.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 6:30:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level I believe in universal healthcare, I just don't know the best way to go about it, and like it or not, with our ageing societies, deficits, and looming crisis with Social Security and Medicare, we are going to find it rough going, and sooner, than later. To be quite honest, no more than I use my health care benefits I couldn't care less if it is private or publically funded. Paying my share of the premiums is a royal pain in the ass to me because I always pay more in than I will likely ever collect and if it was in taxes for a universal healthcare system, I would have the same attitude. If I need stitches is about the only time I see a Doctor and also the only time I am confident in the medical profession anyway, if "I" can tell them what is wrong (er, uh, this is falling off...lol). That being said, the biggest problem I would see if it was a Gov't funded program, is what I also even see in a private program on a smaller scale...ABUSE. Right now, my health care premiums keep increasing because of people being so abusive and running to the doctor for every ache and pain for either themselves or their curtain climbers, real or imagined. At least with a private system someone might occasionally notice an abuser and call them on the carpet about it...I suspect with a Gov't sponsored program, they would not have any whistleblowers. As a general consumer, most folks will weigh the value they get against the cost...with healthcare, they don't seem to be as conservative since they don't pay the entire bill...and if they didn't have to pay any of it...I fear it would be like a 100% off sale at Sears. If there was a way to regulate that...I don't care how it's funded or where it comes from....but who gets to play God and say what is valid?

cuddleheart50 -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 6:32:08 AM)
I would be happy with any heatlhcare, I have no insurance.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 6:57:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50 I would be happy with any heatlhcare, I have no insurance. Which is why it would be a good thing..if they could just get the rules right, as many people don't have alternative options, mostly due to the cost. Everyone should be entitled to medical care when it is necessary.

mistoferin -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 7:52:42 AM)
I don't know what the answer is here but I do know that the health care system in this country is broken in ways that ought to be criminal. The bottom line is that it is a for profit industry...BIG business. There is not much avenue for negotiation for the consumer. If I think the cost of a Cadillac is too high....I have the option of choosing a cheaper model. If I don't want to pay the price for the A/C Delco parts for my car...I can choose to go with the aftermarket version. If I think the cost of an automobile is not in my budget...I can choose to ride my bike or walk. In health care....I don't have those options. It's not like I can choose the cheaper heart valve if I need one replaced. When the need arises you are at their mercy. They know that you HAVE to have what they offer and you have no alternative options. My mother has had many health related issues in the past years. My father has worked hard his entire life and has paid every bill he has ever gotten the moment he gets it. He has had great health coverage. When my mother became sick it was about the same time that my father should have been retiring. I watched him continue to work....construction....hard 10 to 12 hour days....for many years after retirement age for fear that if he lost that level of insurance my mother would no longer have access to quality healthcare and would die. He finally retired last year at the age of 80....mostly because his own body could no longer take that kind of abuse. While he still has some level of his insurance, it is far less than when he was working. Also because of their age, they have Medicare....which is basically worthless. Every time they need a test or procedure they have it verified beforehand if it will be a covered expense....and if not, they generally have to opt to go without it as they can't afford those types of costs on his pension. Two years ago my mother was in a major medical crisis due to a medical accident. It was amazing she survived it and during her long recovery she required 24 hour care. Their insurance didn't provide for such and the out of pocket cost would have been several thousand dollars a month. At that time it was decided that I would quit my job and relocate back here to care for her. I had no issues in doing so....I believe that it was my responsibility as her daughter. I had only been back to work for a few months....but not long enough to qualify for their health care plan when I had my own major medical crisis. When I arrived at the hospital I was very near death and required emergency life saving surgery. At first, I flatly refused it because I simply could not afford it. The next day the doctor informed me that if I didn't allow them to perform it I would be dead within 24 hours. So I consented. No insurance....and now out of work for an extended period of time. My doctors portion of the bill was quite reasonable in my opinion. About $1,900 for a major surgery that literally saved my life. As I sit here typing this though, I have his bill and the rest of the hospital bill. The total is just over $78,000. I have to go back in next month and have the second surgery....which may be even more than the first. Now I have no problem with taking the responsibility for paying my own bills. But total costs will end up to be over $150,000. It is not like I have the means to just write them a check. It will take me a LONG time to pay off this debt. If it were a home purchase I would be asking for a minimum of a 30 year mortgage. Being a private citizen I have to pay that full amount. If I were an insurance company I would only have to pay a mere fraction of it. The funny thing is that at least two health care professionals have made a comment to me along the lines that if I were a crackhead gangbanger who had come in full of bullet holes...they would fix me up and never expect a dime. How sad. I have been off of work now since January of last year. That was when I received my last paycheck....my last income from any source. I have tried desperately to get some sort of assistance through Social Security. I've been paying into it all of my life, so it should be here for me when I need it right? Apparently wrong. I am told you have to be completely disabled for more than 12 months before you can even qualify. How does a person live for 12 months with no income whatsoever??? Do you have the kind of savings that would carry you through that kind of time frame? Add on to that the fact that you are sick, have no insurance and need medications and supplies on a regular basis. How insulting to be told that if I had just been a slug of society instead of a productive hard working citizen that I would have no worries and all of my needs would be met. For a country as powerful as the one in which we live it is shameful that we are in this state of affairs. As I said....I don't have the answer....I wish I did. Maybe then there wouldn't be seniors making decisions between buying needed medications and buying food. There wouldn't be people suffering because they are afraid of the cost of getting care.

meatcleaver -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 8:26:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave OK then explain this...when the UK improved unemployment benefit. ie made it less generous, there was a massive increase in the number of people registering SICK. Weren't they sick before ? I am in favour of a National Health Service/ Universal Medicare but it needs to be set up to avoid abuse and stay under control. Thats the problem. Registering sick and unemployment entitles people to social security, it doesn't cost the health system. However, successive governments, starting with Thatcher used the sickness benefits as a way to mask unemployment and try to prove to everyone her economic policies were working. A lot of the stats are political dishonesty but it doesn't intefere with the national health service.

LotusSong -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 9:42:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Life delt you a shitty hand with that but still that does not entitle you to reach into my pocket, if I want to give then I give if I do not then what specificly gives you the right to take it from me? I'm sure it sound cold hearted and to an extent when it comes to government I am cold hearted, But I'll give and give to charities volentaritly. I just don't see it as Government's job to do it. It's my personal obligation to help those in need not a civic one. It's a matter of which is the correct way to fund such problem situations. Myself I beleive in funding it volentarily as opposed to through government. Pray that you will never need assistance.

popeye1250 -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:00:08 AM)
Gent, by the same token if Saddam Hussein were still in power and torturing and slaughtering the Iraqi people a lot of libs would be chiding the U.S. to "do something" like they are currently about "Darfur." I believe in non-intervention and I'm against Imperialism too. But that means you don't "help" other countries as well as not "interfere" in them. Liberals are always screaming to get our taxdollars to "intervene" in foreign countries. (They) are just as bad as the Bush people! (You'll notice that I didn't call Bush a "Conservative" because he's not a conservative! He's simply a schill for big business.)

pahunkboy -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:10:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin I don't know what the answer is here..... For a country as powerful as the one in which we live it is shameful that we are in this state of affairs. As I said....I don't have the answer....I wish I did. Maybe then there wouldn't be seniors making decisions between buying needed medications and buying food. There wouldn't be people suffering because they are afraid of the cost of getting care. What a cogent post. Im so sorry for your plight. I wish you all the best, kindess regards,

Lordandmaster -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:13:43 AM)
No, it's corporations, not governments. Governments have been indirectly responsible by not doing a fucking thing to intervene, but governments don't dump pollutants into the ocean. (That statement makes me wonder how much you've read about ocean pollution.) Besides, I have to say that you--like most libertarians, frankly--have an outmoded, twentieth-century understanding of what "protecting the environment" means. It's not about polluting your neighbors' land and then having to pay a penalty for it to compensate for the economic loss. It's about disrupting the entire biosphere. Who's responsible for that, and who's gonna pay? Protecting the biosphere isn't possible without comprehensive international protocols that every civilized nation accepts and abides by. Our civilized nation doesn't place much stock in comprehensive international protocols these days. You'll see. Within a few decades this will all be universally accepted. Or else we'll be universally dead. quote: ORIGINAL: Pimpernell Libertarianism has plenty to say about "the environment". If you pollute your neighbours property you compensate them for it. If you want to protect a specific habit, you buy the land, either with your own money, or you get other people involved. There were plenty of charities and funds and whatever you want to call them looking out for the environment in the 19th Century. That's a long time before the government gave a crap about it. It is governments that have sent species to the point of extinction. By refusing to compensate land owners in the US for their land taken when endangered species/sub species are discovered on their property they place people in the position of choosing to go bankrupt or of killing off the animals. It is governments subsidising non-sustainable farming methods. It is governments dumping massive amounts of pollutants into the ocean. It is private enterprise in Africa that brought back the Black Rhino from near extinction.

popeye1250 -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:14:28 AM)
Archer, U.S. Consumers pay for those R&D costs and then they give those drugs to African countries and others for free. The govt's "official" "Foreign Aid" figure of $35 B per year is about one fifth of what it actually is when you count everything up. Everyone in the world is trying to get their hands into the pockets of U.S. Taxpayers and it's going to bankrupt us.

Level -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:24:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster No, it's corporations, not governments. Governments have been indirectly responsible by not doing a fucking thing to intervene, but governments don't dump pollutants into the ocean. (That statement makes me wonder how much you've read about ocean pollution.) Besides, I have to say that you--like most libertarians, frankly--have an outmoded, twentieth-century understanding of what "protecting the environment" means. It's not about polluting your neighbors' land and then having to pay a penalty for it to compensate for the economic loss. It's about disrupting the entire biosphere. Who's responsible for that, and who's gonna pay? Protecting the biosphere isn't possible without comprehensive international protocols that every civilized nation accepts and abides by. Our civilized nation doesn't place much stock in comprehensive international protocols these days. You'll see. Within a few decades this will all be universally accepted. Or else we'll be universally dead. Just saw something about this on the news earlier today; 1/3 of China is suffering serious effects from acid rain caused by their industries. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1930697.cms

Lordandmaster -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:25:48 AM)
Yes, and so are neighboring countries like Korea and Russia.

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:31:24 AM)
The legal mess that requires doctors to practice defensive medicine has alot to do with why you can't go with a cheaper valve for a heart surgery. They use older models replacement parts in many countries. Valves designed in the 90's that have newer and better models available are still serviceable if your patient isn't going to sue when the valve has to be replaced in 10 years instead of 40 years. When they send you to an MRI instead of a CAT scan for the test it's usually because the MRI will show them more it's a better tool, but it's also a more expenssive tool. The option of a cheaper model would be there if the legal system had some reasonable way of dealing with what can be afforded by the patient. You certainly get the cheaper model doctors in most cases at cheaper locations. Not many Johns Hopkins Cardiologists at the county hospital. You get the University of East (State) Cardiologist there. But you are correct for the most part there is little wiggle room in healthcare costs from a consumer choice standpoint. But then again in other consumer areas we expect there to be a difference in quality that comes along with the difference in cost, for some reason healthcare is an area where people are unwilling to accept any variance in quality without running to the courts to sue.

Chaingang -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:35:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Hey, maybe that would help you with those skin tag issues. Yeah, if I had one. Thanks for being a dick such that everyone could identify that fact.

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:43:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster No, it's corporations, not governments. Governments have been indirectly responsible by not doing a fucking thing to intervene, but governments don't dump pollutants into the ocean. (That statement makes me wonder how much you've read about ocean pollution.) Tell it to someone else because I've worked enough EPA sites to know that the government in in up to their necks in many direct application polution problems. Base closings have been an eye opener as to how much the government has been directly responsible for putting into the gound and the groundwater. Dumping on military bases where they have historicly been expemt from EPA guidelines only recently has been addressed. If you add in the blind eye they turn to government contractors for so long you see even more problems that are certainly only one step removed from government dumping it themselves. But we all need to remember that it's only been about 100 years that anyone has been working very hard at environmental issues at all. And just as an informational item the libertarian system of controls makes it as easy to get someone for polution as any other system because it only tries to protect what happens on your owned property. Groundwater does not respect property lines so once something has hit the groundwater unless you prove it will degrade befor leaving your property (not an easy thing to do) you're still on the hook for it. Air polution same way once the poluted air crosses the property line if it's not clean you're on the hook. That's why you don't hear about it much from them there is no real difference betwen libertarian approach to polution and anyone elses.

Level -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:44:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: Level Hey, maybe that would help you with those skin tag issues. Yeah, if I had one. Thanks for being a dick such that everyone could identify that fact. No problem. Anything else I can help with? Insincerely, The self-rightous Dick.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 10:59:34 AM)
All right, I'm willing to believe that military bases have caused environmental problems, but I still don't think the government has DIRECTLY caused anything approaching the problems that private enterprise has caused. OK, here's a good example of an environmental problem that libertarians have no answer for: overfishing in ocean waters. No one seriously denies that ocean waters are being overfished. But who determines what constitutes overfishing, and who enforces whatever protocols are instituted? I'm not going to mention global warming, because I anticipate that you're going to pretend to doubt that global warming has a human cause--but, you know, for the rest of the human race that believes the evidence, it's not a problem that libertarians can solve with their present ideologies. quote: ORIGINAL: Archer quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster No, it's corporations, not governments. Governments have been indirectly responsible by not doing a fucking thing to intervene, but governments don't dump pollutants into the ocean. (That statement makes me wonder how much you've read about ocean pollution.) Tell it to someone else because I've worked enough EPA sites to know that the government in in up to their necks in many direct application polution problems. Base closings have been an eye opener as to how much the government has been directly responsible for putting into the gound and the groundwater. Dumping on military bases where they have historicly been expemt from EPA guidelines only recently has been addressed. If you add in the blind eye they turn to government contractors for so long you see even more problems that are certainly only one step removed from government dumping it themselves.

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 11:13:10 AM)
I'll concure they have a gap there since the ownership of the fish is something that falls outside their POV. But short of some purists the idea of limiting catches and lisceneses have not been protested either.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125