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

Forums - General - If your poor, good news. The rich are paying your healthcare.

Sardauk on 15 July 2009
Viper1 said:
Sardauk said:
Viper1 said:
Sardauk said:

Ok so what do you guys think Obama should do ?

 

I saw this tv broadcast about poor US people who never saw a doctor or a dentist in their live.

They had to queue for 10 hours into a sport complex to have a chance to see a (free) specialist ...

 

What do we do with that ? Is this kind of things acceptable ?

Health insurance reform and free market.   Get the government out of it (they started the damn HMO's in the first place).

 

Our government fails at providing services...plain and simple.  Why in the world would I want them trying to provide me with healthcare?

Ok so private insurrances (I'm with that).

Regulated or not ?

I'd prefer as little regulation as possible.    Overregulating is part of our current problem.  Too much control and not enough freedom for the companies or consumer.

Yes but we are talking about healthcare insurrances... and I know that private companies (especially in insurance sector) are very good at trying to fool you and not paying you when they have to..

I'm not 100% confident in a pure private sector. I believe that a minimum as to come from the state.

People can put pressure on the state, not on companies... I don't want to see that my insurrance companies is closed, sent all the money abroad and that my sick son won't be treated...

I believe it is possible to get the best of both worlds combined, without harming public spending.



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

Around the Network
Viper1 on 15 July 2009
Sardauk said:
Viper1 said:
Sardauk said:
Viper1 said:
Sardauk said:

Ok so what do you guys think Obama should do ?

 

I saw this tv broadcast about poor US people who never saw a doctor or a dentist in their live.

They had to queue for 10 hours into a sport complex to have a chance to see a (free) specialist ...

 

What do we do with that ? Is this kind of things acceptable ?

Health insurance reform and free market.   Get the government out of it (they started the damn HMO's in the first place).

 

Our government fails at providing services...plain and simple.  Why in the world would I want them trying to provide me with healthcare?

Ok so private insurrances (I'm with that).

Regulated or not ?

I'd prefer as little regulation as possible.    Overregulating is part of our current problem.  Too much control and not enough freedom for the companies or consumer.

Yes but we are talking about healthcare insurrances... and I know that private companies (especially in insurance sector) are very good at trying to fool you and not paying you when they have to..

I'm not 100% confident in a pure private sector. I believe that a minimum as to come from the state.

People can put pressure on the state, not on companies... I don't want to see that my insurrance companies is closed, sent all the money abroad and that my sick son won't be treated...

I believe it is possible to get the best of both worlds combined, without harming public spending.

The reason for this is a lack of competition.  They can give you a nasty run around and you can't do a damn thing about it.  If it were a free market you could take your business elsehwere.   That's a very big incentive for an insurance company to straighten up and act right.

 

This is why I saw we haven't had a free market in a long time because there is no competition in the healthcare field.  Government has prevented it.  You don't hear the same horror stories with car insurance, do you?  Not even close.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Sqrl on 15 July 2009
Sardauk said:
HappySqurriel said:
Sardauk said:

Ok so what do you guys think Obama should do ?

 

I saw this tv broadcast about poor US people who never saw a doctor or a dentist in their live.

They had to queue for 10 hours into a sport complex to have a chance to see a (free) specialist ...

 

What do we do with that ? Is this kind of things acceptable ?

Why do you (and everyone it seems) assume that this problem will be instantly resolved by switching who pays for healthcare?

The number one reason why healthcare has become so expensive over the past (roughly) 100 years is that technology has increased giving us an ability to treat far more things, and to be far more successful with what we do treat; and because we're treating more things and the cost of everything we treat is going up we are seeing exponential growth in the cost of delivering healthcare. To make matters worse people are living less healthy lives then they ever did, and this is adding strain to an already stressed system.

We should be focusing on reducing the 90% of illnesses and injuries that are preventable, and reducing the (over) 50% of costs that are associated with overhead in the system.

Changing who pays for the system won't make a difference.

This is totally true... AND totally utopistic.

 

It's only utopistic in so far as we would expect to be able to prevent everything that is preventable and reduce the cost of overhead 100%. Making inroads on these factors even in a pessimistic scenario can shift the numbers from something that is practically impossible to something that is feasible. It's an angle we have to pursue and as of now there is very little effort to do so beyond empty words and promises (this started well before Obama but thus far it looks to continue under him)
To Each Man, Responsibility
Sardauk on 15 July 2009
Viper1 said:
Sardauk said:
Viper1 said:
Sardauk said:
Viper1 said:
Sardauk said:

Ok so what do you guys think Obama should do ?

 

I saw this tv broadcast about poor US people who never saw a doctor or a dentist in their live.

They had to queue for 10 hours into a sport complex to have a chance to see a (free) specialist ...

 

What do we do with that ? Is this kind of things acceptable ?

Health insurance reform and free market.   Get the government out of it (they started the damn HMO's in the first place).

 

Our government fails at providing services...plain and simple.  Why in the world would I want them trying to provide me with healthcare?

Ok so private insurrances (I'm with that).

Regulated or not ?

I'd prefer as little regulation as possible.    Overregulating is part of our current problem.  Too much control and not enough freedom for the companies or consumer.

Yes but we are talking about healthcare insurrances... and I know that private companies (especially in insurance sector) are very good at trying to fool you and not paying you when they have to..

I'm not 100% confident in a pure private sector. I believe that a minimum as to come from the state.

People can put pressure on the state, not on companies... I don't want to see that my insurrance companies is closed, sent all the money abroad and that my sick son won't be treated...

I believe it is possible to get the best of both worlds combined, without harming public spending.

The reason for this is a lack of competition.  They can give you a nasty run around and you can't do a damn thing about it.  If it were a free market you could take your business elsehwere.   That's a very big incentive for an insurance company to straighten up and act right.

 

This is why I saw we haven't had a free market in a long time because there is no competition in the healthcare field.  Government has prevented it.  You don't hear the same horror stories with car insurance, do you?  Not even close.

Here we do

All the time...



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

Viper1 on 15 July 2009

Ah well that may be in Europe but in the US car insurance is a walk in the park to deal with compared to healthcare insurance. Sure they can be a pain at times but nothing like health insurance.

It is with that in mind that I suggest health insurance reform. Also because prices are stupid high and you're tethered to an employer. Change jobs or even change your hours too much and you lose health insurance completely.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 15 July 2009

I am for pure capitalism, with government stepping in to do what government is supposed to do. protect people.

For example, they should make sure a drug does not kill you, or an appliance does not burn down your house. They should not make sure you can somehow afford that drug, or that appliance.



SamuelRSmith on 15 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
I am for pure capitalism, with government stepping in to do what government is supposed to do. protect people.

For example, they should make sure a drug does not kill you, or an appliance does not burn down your house. They should not make sure you can somehow afford that drug, or that appliance.

To play devil's advocate, the Government isn't really protecting you if you can't afford the drug, in some sort of sick way, they're just protecting those who can afford to be protected.

And job losses can have a really negative effect on people's mentality. It's a well known fact that crime levels are higher in areas with higher unemployment, surely the Government is putting your life in danger if it's not protecting other people's jobs.



TheRealMafoo on 15 July 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
TheRealMafoo said:
I am for pure capitalism, with government stepping in to do what government is supposed to do. protect people.

For example, they should make sure a drug does not kill you, or an appliance does not burn down your house. They should not make sure you can somehow afford that drug, or that appliance.

To play devil's advocate, the Government isn't really protecting you if you can't afford the drug, in some sort of sick way, they're just protecting those who can afford to be protected.

And job losses can have a really negative effect on people's mentality. It's a well known fact that crime levels are higher in areas with higher unemployment, surely the Government is putting your life in danger if it's not protecting other people's jobs.

Sorry, but that's poor logic. If a Volvo is the safest car in the world, I could argue that the government is murdering people because they do not force you to drive a Volvo. This is the argument your making.

A country that pays people to not commit crimes, is a country with something fundamentally wrong.



SamuelRSmith on 15 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
SamuelRSmith said:
TheRealMafoo said:
I am for pure capitalism, with government stepping in to do what government is supposed to do. protect people.

For example, they should make sure a drug does not kill you, or an appliance does not burn down your house. They should not make sure you can somehow afford that drug, or that appliance.

To play devil's advocate, the Government isn't really protecting you if you can't afford the drug, in some sort of sick way, they're just protecting those who can afford to be protected.

And job losses can have a really negative effect on people's mentality. It's a well known fact that crime levels are higher in areas with higher unemployment, surely the Government is putting your life in danger if it's not protecting other people's jobs.

Sorry, but that's poor logic. If a Volvo is the safest car in the world, I could argue that the government is murdering people because they do not force you to drive a Volvo. This is the argument your making.

A country that pays people to not commit crimes, is a country with something fundamentally wrong.

Isn't that what your in support of, though? A Government that protects people.

Seems a bit nanny-stateish, to me.

(Yes, I know it's not actually what your in support of, but all Governments serve to protect, they just have different ways of going about it. Our Government, for example, protects people by giving them welfare).



TheRealMafoo on 15 July 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
TheRealMafoo said:
SamuelRSmith said:
TheRealMafoo said:
I am for pure capitalism, with government stepping in to do what government is supposed to do. protect people.

For example, they should make sure a drug does not kill you, or an appliance does not burn down your house. They should not make sure you can somehow afford that drug, or that appliance.

To play devil's advocate, the Government isn't really protecting you if you can't afford the drug, in some sort of sick way, they're just protecting those who can afford to be protected.

And job losses can have a really negative effect on people's mentality. It's a well known fact that crime levels are higher in areas with higher unemployment, surely the Government is putting your life in danger if it's not protecting other people's jobs.

Sorry, but that's poor logic. If a Volvo is the safest car in the world, I could argue that the government is murdering people because they do not force you to drive a Volvo. This is the argument your making.

A country that pays people to not commit crimes, is a country with something fundamentally wrong.

Isn't that what your in support of, though? A Government that protects people.

Seems a bit nanny-stateish, to me.

(Yes, I know it's not actually what your in support of, but all Governments serve to protect, they just have different ways of going about it. Our Government, for example, protects people by giving them welfare).

All welfare protects people from, is success.