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

Forums - General - The major problem with US Universal Healthcare plan.

ironman on 22 June 2009
akuma587 said:
HappySqurriel said:

A few problems associated with the US' current implemetation of healthcare ...

Healthcare "Insurance" isn't really insurance at all and is (basically) an open ended pre-paid healthcare plan. In many ways this would be like home insurance paying for people to re-decorate or re-model their house rather than protecting you from risks like fire and theft.

The system discourages the competition that makes other markets so inexpensive and high quality. You rarely choose your healthcare insurance provider (it is typically choosen by your company), you don't choose the coverage you get, you don't choose where you get your treatment, and you don't choose the treatment you get.

 

If healthcare insurance worked like insurance, these companies offered seperate healthcare benefit plans, your company put money towards buying healthcare services (rather than buying them for you), you made decisions on what healthcare insurance and benefits you wanted (and possibly paid out of pocket if it cost more than your benefit package was worth), and your healthcare paid out a certain value for you to get access to doctors of for treatments you could choose who treated you and what treatment you received (possibly paying more out of pocket if you wanted better treatment), the entire system would become better for (almost) everyone involved.

I completely agree.  The healthcare system does not operate like a free market, and encourages people to make economically unwise decisions.  People's choices are severely limited as well.  Not to mention insurance companies are about as bureaucratic as they come.  They spend a ridiculous amount of money on overhead (even more than many government agencies).  They are essentially a middle man who ends up artificially inflating costs while essentially transferring money from Party A to Party B without ever really contributing anything.

@ Mafoo - Yes, it is completely fair to blame the government for something that happened on a temporary basis over 60 years ago for a modern day phenomenon.  That's completely logical.  Don't blame all the people who beat the anti-government war drum every time the government tried to fix the system from being so backwards. And don't blame the people who manipulate the tax code.

It sounds like you are encouraging the government to take away the tax break on healthcare (i.e. regulate this practice) while just the other day you threw a hissy fit about the government regulating the banking industry.  You really don't come off as credible when you blame the government for every single thing that happens.  You would probably blame the government if one of your pets ran away.

Let's start with the tax break, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WALLET! Clear enough? Tax breaks are a good thing,especially when they cover the entire spectrum, they put more money in people's pockets, and less in the governments.

I don't really see the connection between complaining about the government sticking it's nose into the banking industry, and the government sticking it's nose into the healthcare industry, and not being creadible because you are consistant. EVERYTHING the government gets involved in is a screw up, you know why? Because our country is run by Lawyers, Lawyers, are trained to victomize everybody, that's how they get their money, after all, you can't go to court without a victom. So, they don't really come up with worthwhile solutions, they come up with ideas to get themselves elected again. I would LOVE to see term limits on every single bastard in government!



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 22 June 2009
akuma587 said:

@ Mafoo - Yes, it is completely fair to blame the government for something that happened on a temporary basis over 60 years ago for a modern day phenomenon.  That's completely logical.  Don't blame all the people who beat the anti-government war drum every time the government tried to fix the system from being so backwards. And don't blame the people who manipulate the tax code.

It sounds like you are encouraging the government to take away the tax break on healthcare (i.e. regulate this practice) while just the other day you threw a hissy fit about the government regulating the banking industry.  You really don't come off as credible when you blame the government for every single thing that happens.  You would probably blame the government if one of your pets ran away.

When something goes wrong in the US, I blame whoever caused it. Usually, that's whomever is in power. Today, all the power lies in the Federal Government.

If we lived in a world where corporations were more powerful then government, I would blame them for the problems. If we lived in a world with states rights, I would blame the states.

If we lived in the world I want to live in, I would blame the people.

The world will always have problems, and those problems are the result of the people with the most influence screwing up.

If the government wants to be my mother and father with respect to there power, then they get all the credit when things go well (civil rights), and the blame when things go bad (everything after civil rights).



bdbdbd on 22 June 2009
ironman said:

Let's start with the tax break, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WALLET! Clear enough? Tax breaks are a good thing,especially when they cover the entire spectrum, they put more money in people's pockets, and less in the governments.


I don't really see the connection between complaining about the government sticking it's nose into the banking industry, and the government sticking it's nose into the healthcare industry, and not being creadible because you are consistant. EVERYTHING the government gets involved in is a screw up, you know why? Because our country is run by Lawyers, Lawyers, are trained to victomize everybody, that's how they get their money, after all, you can't go to court without a victom. So, they don't really come up with worthwhile solutions, they come up with ideas to get themselves elected again. I would LOVE to see term limits on every single bastard in government!




On a side note, since countries aren't businesses, no money is going "to government pockets", despite this being popular term among the press. What governments are supposed to do, is to spend the money it collects in taxes, in full, usually to peoples good. You can always argue whether it's going to the correct place, but you get what you vote for. Government and people aren't separate instances.

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

highwaystar101 on 22 June 2009
bdbdbd said:
ironman said:

Let's start with the tax break, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WALLET! Clear enough? Tax breaks are a good thing,especially when they cover the entire spectrum, they put more money in people's pockets, and less in the governments.


I don't really see the connection between complaining about the government sticking it's nose into the banking industry, and the government sticking it's nose into the healthcare industry, and not being creadible because you are consistant. EVERYTHING the government gets involved in is a screw up, you know why? Because our country is run by Lawyers, Lawyers, are trained to victomize everybody, that's how they get their money, after all, you can't go to court without a victom. So, they don't really come up with worthwhile solutions, they come up with ideas to get themselves elected again. I would LOVE to see term limits on every single bastard in government!



On a side note, since countries aren't businesses, no money is going "to government pockets", despite this being popular term among the press. What governments are supposed to do, is to spend the money it collects in taxes, in full, usually to peoples good. You can always argue whether it's going to the correct place, but you get what you vote for. Government and people aren't separate instances.

If the USA had more than two big parties, then this statement would be full of win. But seeing as it only has the choice of two, let's face it, shit parties then the people have no real decision on where the money is going because they have the choice between ultra conservative spending and liberal pro-nationalism spending... Not much of a middle road.

Things are a bit different in Britain, much more a choice. Three or four large parties like in Britain will benefit the USA.

But in principle I agree with you statement about taxes, I'm just going wayyy off topic lol



bdbdbd on 22 June 2009
highwaystar101 said:

If the USA had more than two big parties, then this statement would be full of win. But seeing as it only has the choice of two, let's face it, shit parties then the people have no real decision on where the money is going because they have the choice between ultra conservative spending and liberal pro-nationalism spending... Not much of a middle road.


Things are a bit different in Britain, much more a choice. Three or four large parties like in Britain will benefit the USA.


But in principle I agree with you statement about taxes, I'm just going wayyy off topic lol




But are there two big parties by law or by vote. If the former, it's a shit, if the latter, you're still getting what you vote for.

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 22 June 2009
bdbdbd said:
ironman said:

Let's start with the tax break, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WALLET! Clear enough? Tax breaks are a good thing,especially when they cover the entire spectrum, they put more money in people's pockets, and less in the governments.


I don't really see the connection between complaining about the government sticking it's nose into the banking industry, and the government sticking it's nose into the healthcare industry, and not being creadible because you are consistant. EVERYTHING the government gets involved in is a screw up, you know why? Because our country is run by Lawyers, Lawyers, are trained to victomize everybody, that's how they get their money, after all, you can't go to court without a victom. So, they don't really come up with worthwhile solutions, they come up with ideas to get themselves elected again. I would LOVE to see term limits on every single bastard in government!



On a side note, since countries aren't businesses, no money is going "to government pockets", despite this being popular term among the press. What governments are supposed to do, is to spend the money it collects in taxes, in full, usually to peoples good. You can always argue whether it's going to the correct place, but you get what you vote for. Government and people aren't separate instances.

The problem is it’s backwards. The government should figure out what it needs in money to do its job, and then bill the people for it.

But how it works, is they collect the most they think they can get their hands on, and then decide what to spend it on.



bdbdbd on 22 June 2009
TheRealMafoo said:

The problem is it’s backwards. The government should figure out what it needs in money to do its job, and then bill the people for it.


But how it works, is they collect the most they think they can get their hands on, and then decide what to spend it on.




You have rather low taxrate, but that's not really an issue here.

Budget surplus (as i understood you were meaning) isn't a bad thing, the money would go back to circulation. More problematic thing is the loantaking (i'm not going into detail here, since it has important upsides) to create the surplus.

Creating a budget isn't that easy, since the tax income may vary largely from estimations, and the money to the budget isn't last year tax income, it's the taxes collected "at the moment" (or in another words, it's spent as soon as the money comes in). Of course, different ministeries may spend their whole budget so, that it wouldn't be reduced next year in favour of another, which do look what you described.

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

akuma587 on 22 June 2009
bdbdbd said:
TheRealMafoo said:

The problem is it’s backwards. The government should figure out what it needs in money to do its job, and then bill the people for it.


But how it works, is they collect the most they think they can get their hands on, and then decide what to spend it on.



You have rather low taxrate, but that's not really an issue here.

Budget surplus (as i understood you were meaning) isn't a bad thing, the money would go back to circulation. More problematic thing is the loantaking (i'm not going into detail here, since it has important upsides) to create the surplus.

Creating a budget isn't that easy, since the tax income may vary largely from estimations, and the money to the budget isn't last year tax income, it's the taxes collected "at the moment" (or in another words, it's spent as soon as the money comes in). Of course, different ministeries may spend their whole budget so, that it wouldn't be reduced next year in favour of another, which do look what you described.

Plus a budget surplus can be used to pay down the national debt (and is the only way to pay down the national debt). 

And for everyone who complains about Obama spending so much money, I would like to remind you that Bush's budget for his last term was over $3.1 trillion.  And that does not include the $700 billion TARP legislation. 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

HappySqurriel on 22 June 2009
akuma587 said:
bdbdbd said:
TheRealMafoo said:

The problem is it’s backwards. The government should figure out what it needs in money to do its job, and then bill the people for it.


But how it works, is they collect the most they think they can get their hands on, and then decide what to spend it on.



You have rather low taxrate, but that's not really an issue here.

Budget surplus (as i understood you were meaning) isn't a bad thing, the money would go back to circulation. More problematic thing is the loantaking (i'm not going into detail here, since it has important upsides) to create the surplus.

Creating a budget isn't that easy, since the tax income may vary largely from estimations, and the money to the budget isn't last year tax income, it's the taxes collected "at the moment" (or in another words, it's spent as soon as the money comes in). Of course, different ministeries may spend their whole budget so, that it wouldn't be reduced next year in favour of another, which do look what you described.

Plus a budget surplus can be used to pay down the national debt (and is the only way to pay down the national debt).

And for everyone who complains about Obama spending so much money, I would like to remind you that Bush's budget for his last term was over $3.1 trillion. And that does not include the $700 billion TARP legislation.

An odd thing occured to me when I read this ... The Obama administration is doing more to ensure a legacy for George W. Bush than shrub ever did for himself. Seriously, after a couple of years of people defending Obama with "He's only twice as bad as Bush was in his worst year" a lot of moderates and fiscally conservative democrats are going to start thinking that Bush wasn't that bad afterall.



NinjaguyDan on 04 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

@ Mafoo - Yes, it is completely fair to blame the government for something that happened on a temporary basis over 60 years ago for a modern day phenomenon.  That's completely logical.  Don't blame all the people who beat the anti-government war drum every time the government tried to fix the system from being so backwards. And don't blame the people who manipulate the tax code.

It sounds like you are encouraging the government to take away the tax break on healthcare (i.e. regulate this practice) while just the other day you threw a hissy fit about the government regulating the banking industry.  You really don't come off as credible when you blame the government for every single thing that happens.  You would probably blame the government if one of your pets ran away.

When something goes wrong in the US, I blame whoever caused it. *1

Usually, that's whomever is in power. Today, all the power lies in the Federal Government. *2

If we lived in a world where corporations were more powerful then government, I would blame them for the problems.*3 If we lived in a world with states rights, I would blame the states.

If we lived in the world I want to live in,*4   I would blame the people.

The world will always have problems, and those problems are the result of the people with the most influence screwing up.

If the government wants to be my mother and father with respect to there power, then they get all the credit when things go well (civil rights), and the blame when things go bad (everything after civil rights).

1 BULLSHIT!  Show me where you blamed Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 for our ELEVEN TRILLION Dollar DEBT!

2 Push the blame on someone who has been in office for only SIX MONTHS?!?  Just shows your sense of "Fair Play".

3 They are and you should, unfortunately you're too busy defending them.

4 Fortunately we don't, that place is called HELL!

You sound like someone who was born on second but believes he hit a double.



Switch: SW-5066-1525-5130

XBL: GratuitousFREEK