By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - I believe the victims here would appreciate some "socialism" - as in Medicare for all.

SamuelRSmith said:
Soleron said:
SamuelRSmith said:
sethnintendo said:
"Caring for a gunshot wound victim who is hospitalized for four to seven days can cost up to $56,000,"

Pretty good deal considering the hospital I went to for my appendectomy charged 20,000 for one night stay in hospital which they wrote off to the government. I did pay (with parents help) the surgeon, anesthesiologist, pathologist, and the MRI scan.

And "boom", goes the dynamite.

Yep, the irony of the American system is that most of this care gets paid for by the government in some way anyway, whether as an employer who provides health insurance (and the US govt employs a LOT of people), or military, or emergency care exceptions, or Medicare/aid. I would bet the total /real/ outlay per person by the US govt is higher than a fully universal system.

You're 100% right, unfortunately, nobody will ever do anything about it, and the current administration seems hell-bent on making the system worse.


Not true, you better pay attention to the Vermont progressive party. They already have a opt out of obama care set and should put in universal healthcare by 2016-1017 at the latest. Lets not forget that they also take no corporate money. So yea there is some good people out there. I just wish they didn't use the word progressive, People put up a wall as soon as they hear that. Either way.

http://www.progressiveparty.org/issues/platform



Around the Network
Troll_Whisperer said:

Don't want to start a debate because they bore me, but here's my two cents.

I don't see how universal healthcare is any more socialist than a universal police force, fire brigade... I don't see any American complaining about not being able to choose what police "company" provides them security.

It could have some justification (not for me, but for some) if they saved a lot of money on healthcare, but the thing is the USA stills manages to be the country that spends the most per capita on healthcare. I just don't get how that's possible.

Greed is rewarded and on top of that the people's jelousy has turned them against another middle class rather then the people sneaking off with all the cash.



HappySqurriel said:
While I'm against universal healthcare, having government provided health insurance for all citizens to cover non-preventable illnesses and injuries is reasonable ...

After all, preventable illnesses and injuries represent the bulk of healthcare costs which means this insurance would not be that expensive; and since they couldn't prevent the illness or injury the moral hazzard is fairly minimal.

If I recall correctly, the original Obama plan was something like this.  Idea was to have goverment health insurance step in the gap.  The GOP and insurance industry opposed it, so Obama switched to the Heritage Foundation Romneycare alternative, which is what the GOP was pushing when they were going against Hillarycare.

What we have now is a universal health care plan called "the emergency room".  The Emergency Room plan is what is brought up whenever people discuss healthcare issues.  The reply comes back, "You can always go to an emergency room, so why are you complaining?"



Soleron said:
HappySqurriel said:
Soleron said:
HappySqurriel said:
While I'm against universal healthcare, having government provided health insurance for all citizens to cover non-preventable illnesses and injuries is reasonable ...

After all, preventable illnesses and injuries represent the bulk of healthcare costs which means this insurance would not be that expensive; and since they couldn't prevent the illness or injury the moral hazzard is fairly minimal.

What is the difference between those two? Do you mean everything except smoking and obesity related illnesses? I don't think people choose to do those things based on whether the state would pay for treatment or not.

No, non-preventable illnesses and injuries are actually relatively rare ... Most illnesses and injuries have a large element of preventability to them.

OK. The outcome is the same though, you get otherwise working age people unable to work because of health issues they can't afford to fix. Whether it was their fault or not I think it's desirable that they be back working ASAP.

If it wasn't for Medicaid, I would still be laid up, and not recovering, from a degenerative disk in my back, in ongoing perpetual pain in my leg.  The disk was removed, and I have been trying to recover still.  I ended up losing a part-time janitor position because of the disk.  I am hoping to get some work at home tech support position by sometime September.  As it is now, I can at least do more.

Of course, I had some yahoo on the Internet, despite all this, end up going I should kill myself so his taxes would be lower and he wouldn't have to listen to me whine.



I don't get this, everyone seems so happy in Grey's Anatomy.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

Around the Network
haxxiy said:
Medical care is so overpriced on the USA my aunt once considered opening an agency on Orlando in order to bring people to Brazil to start their treatment / have their surgery on private clinics here. Hell, for a single check-up it is cheaper to pay an extra $1000 for the flight.

Solution: kill all your physicists and import new ones from India. Surely it would ruin less lives in the end.


The phycisians aren't the problem. Its the American system.

Our system is fraught with insane compliance costs because of government. Our government's interference with the market comprises more costs than the actual care itself. Its only going to get more expensive, thanks to the Democrats and Obama, because they've increased taxes on medical equipment.

Having a universal healthcare system may not fix the compliance costs. If the regulations still exist that doctors, nurses, and hospitals must deal with in order to be compensated, then it means that everyone simply foots the bill of the most expensive health care system in the world.

Fix the cost issues first by removing the massive amount of government compliances (as well as the cartel known as the AMA which licenses everyone). The system will be rather cheap. Then, at that point, discuss the argument of universal health care. But I do believe that at that time, everyone would be covered due to how cheap insurances are.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball said:
haxxiy said:
...


The phycisians aren't the problem. Its the American system.

Our system is fraught with insane compliance costs because of government. Our government's interference with the market comprises more costs than the actual care itself. Its only going to get more expensive, thanks to the Democrats and Obama, because they've increased taxes on medical equipment.

Having a universal healthcare system may not fix the compliance costs. If the regulations still exist that doctors, nurses, and hospitals must deal with in order to be compensated, then it means that everyone simply foots the bill of the most expensive health care system in the world.

Fix the cost issues first by removing the massive amount of government compliances (as well as the cartel known as the AMA which licenses everyone). The system will be rather cheap. Then, at that point, discuss the argument of universal health care. But I do believe that at that time, everyone would be covered due to how cheap insurances are.

I believe that the worst systems in the world are those combinin public and private governance. Franchising, outsourcing, regional cable monopolies, UK's private finance initiatives, and so on. You get the inefficiency/lack of competition of public systems combined with the profit-seeking and lack of accountability of the markets.

If we must have a system like you describe, I want to see the government have no role in the choice of facility. Medicare/Medicaid covered people must be allowed to choose any hospital or provider and the government will pay the same rate for care as the market would, otherwie the size of the government's custom will continue to distort the market.



Soleron said:
mrstickball said:
haxxiy said:
...


The phycisians aren't the problem. Its the American system.

Our system is fraught with insane compliance costs because of government. Our government's interference with the market comprises more costs than the actual care itself. Its only going to get more expensive, thanks to the Democrats and Obama, because they've increased taxes on medical equipment.

Having a universal healthcare system may not fix the compliance costs. If the regulations still exist that doctors, nurses, and hospitals must deal with in order to be compensated, then it means that everyone simply foots the bill of the most expensive health care system in the world.

Fix the cost issues first by removing the massive amount of government compliances (as well as the cartel known as the AMA which licenses everyone). The system will be rather cheap. Then, at that point, discuss the argument of universal health care. But I do believe that at that time, everyone would be covered due to how cheap insurances are.

I believe that the worst systems in the world are those combinin public and private governance. Franchising, outsourcing, regional cable monopolies, UK's private finance initiatives, and so on. You get the inefficiency/lack of competition of public systems combined with the profit-seeking and lack of accountability of the markets.

If we must have a system like you describe, I want to see the government have no role in the choice of facility. Medicare/Medicaid covered people must be allowed to choose any hospital or provider and the government will pay the same rate for care as the market would, otherwie the size of the government's custom will continue to distort the market.

We are in agreement.

The reality is that due to various requirements of medicare/mediciad, costs actually increase. You have an odd, horribly inefficient mix of quasi-free market entities (for-profit corporations) and governments that pay for services not based on actual costs, but merely whatever its pegged to. The result is horrific cost containment.

A good example is as CT scan. Our local newspaper published a study on the cost of CT scans in our largest city (Columbus, OH). Do you want to guess what the price difference was among all CT scan providers? The median price was about $1,500. The cheapest? $200. Why was it so cheap? They rejected Medicare/medicaid and most insurances, and were, as far as I know, a cash-pay clinic. My wife went to one of these (similar) centers for our baby's ultrasound. For just $80 USD, we got a 20 minute 4D scan (thats 3D+ pictures and videos). Comparatively, when my wife was forced to get an ultrasound at a hospital, it was $1,500 for 20 minutes of ultrasound + a 1 hour stay in a bed.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kantor said:
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
Soleron said:
HappySqurriel said:
While I'm against universal healthcare, having government provided health insurance for all citizens to cover non-preventable illnesses and injuries is reasonable ...

After all, preventable illnesses and injuries represent the bulk of healthcare costs which means this insurance would not be that expensive; and since they couldn't prevent the illness or injury the moral hazzard is fairly minimal.

What is the difference between those two? Do you mean everything except smoking and obesity related illnesses? I don't think people choose to do those things based on whether the state would pay for treatment or not.

No, non-preventable illnesses and injuries are actually relatively rare ... Most illnesses and injuries have a large element of preventability to them.

So you mean a safety net for medical injuries incurred through freak incidents of mass murder or a train crash or something?

Sounds good to me. It would certainly be more politically realistic to pitch than universal care, at least.

Those sorts of things are so rare that it ends up happening anyway, at least in the early stages.

I suppose Obamacare goes some way to ensuring that people have adequate protection for when these sorts of things happen, but I'm not a fan of the methodology. 

Actually... sudden unexpected problems are largely going to be thing Obamacare DOESN'T help... and argueably makes worse.

If "Romneycare" is any prediction for Obamacare... pretty much all the healthcare increase is going to end up being in the expansion of Medicare.

People still won't buy the individual mandate... the tax "penalty" only really falls on those who make a certain amount. (Or so is expected anyway).

Additionally, funding for free clinics and clinics in poor areas are going to have their funding for uninsured patients go down... espiecally areas with lots of illegal aliens.

The group hardest hit by this is expected to be Illegal aliens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/nyregion/affordable-care-act-reduces-a-fund-for-the-uninsured.html?pagewanted=all



Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
Soleron said:
HappySqurriel said:
While I'm against universal healthcare, having government provided health insurance for all citizens to cover non-preventable illnesses and injuries is reasonable ...

After all, preventable illnesses and injuries represent the bulk of healthcare costs which means this insurance would not be that expensive; and since they couldn't prevent the illness or injury the moral hazzard is fairly minimal.

What is the difference between those two? Do you mean everything except smoking and obesity related illnesses? I don't think people choose to do those things based on whether the state would pay for treatment or not.

No, non-preventable illnesses and injuries are actually relatively rare ... Most illnesses and injuries have a large element of preventability to them.

So you mean a safety net for medical injuries incurred through freak incidents of mass murder or a train crash or something?

Sounds good to me. It would certainly be more politically realistic to pitch than universal care, at least.

Those sorts of things are so rare that it ends up happening anyway, at least in the early stages.

I suppose Obamacare goes some way to ensuring that people have adequate protection for when these sorts of things happen, but I'm not a fan of the methodology. 

Actually... sudden unexpected problems are largely going to be thing Obamacare DOESN'T help... and argueably makes worse.

If "Romneycare" is any prediction for Obamacare... pretty much all the healthcare increase is going to end up being in the expansion of Medicare.

People still won't buy the individual mandate... the tax "penalty" only really falls on those who make a certain amount. (Or so is expected anyway).

Additionally, funding for free clinics and clinics in poor areas are going to have their funding for uninsured patients go down... espiecally areas with lots of illegal aliens.

The group hardest hit by this is expected to be Illegal aliens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/nyregion/affordable-care-act-reduces-a-fund-for-the-uninsured.html?pagewanted=all

Maybe one would think that it is a kneejerk reaction against Obama that causes opposition to anything he pushes, but it would seem the likes of commentators around Fox News, Newscorp and others would be really happy if this is the fallout.  Anything to get illegal aliens to leave would seem to be a good thing.