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

Forums - General - Warning from the President!

Mr Khan on 19 July 2009
Kasz216 said:

HMO's don't count for that.  HMO's are just anticompetitive groups that are around because of the government.

Due to Nixon and his attempts to get universal healthcare.

45% doesn't count that....

if your wondering around 28% of the country is currently covered under government programs.


The government spends between 45% and 56.1% of healthcare costs to cover 28% of the people... and they're the ones who are going to make things cheaper... somehow.

Not to mention that there is overlap and some of that 28% get private healthcare as well.

Well that should be obvious. The 28% they're covering are the old, disabled, and poor, who would naturally rack up the most health-care costs



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Slimebeast on 19 July 2009
Kasz216 said:
Slimebeast said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:

Yeah, i've always wondered why people raise hell about us "not being able to choose our own doctors" when that's more or less what we have now. Currently i'm not satisfied with my dermatologist, and wanted to change. There aren't too many in my region, and the nearest one outside the one i want to get rid of is not in my family's plan's network, so no go.

 

What would we be losing if it was the government telling us who couldn't treat us, and not some corporation?

They already are.... HMO's exist because of the government.

Apparently 45% of Healthcare spending is currently due to the government.

 

Just 45? If HMO's count under that, shouldn't it be more? I thought the HMO was the standard for most Americans

HMO's don't count for that.  HMO's are just anticompetitive groups that are around because of the government.

Due to Nixon and his attempts to get universal healthcare.

45% doesn't count that....

if your wondering around 28% of the country is currently covered under government programs.

 

The government spends between 45% and 56.1% of healthcare costs to cover 28% of the people... and they're the ones who are going to make things cheaper... somehow.

Not to mention that there is overlap and some of that 28% get private healthcare as well.


Sorry for interfering but I dont follow, and this sounds interesting.

Whats HMO and all these numbers?

What does "The government spends between 45% and 56.1% of healthcare costs to cover 28% of the people" refer to, in detail?

Basically 45 to 56 cents out of every dollar spent on healthcare is spent by the government.  To cover 28% of the people.

Leaving 44 to 55 cents out of every dollar spent on healthcare to cover 68% Of the people from the private sector.

 

HMO's are "Health Maitenince Orginzations."

Basically it's health insurance that only applies to certain doctors in certain areas.

I've never had one myself.  I opt to pay for regular health insurance.

I dont get it. Isnt the government funded health care cheap and low standard? While private funded health care is expensive and better quality.



Kasz216 on 19 July 2009
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
 

HMO's don't count for that.  HMO's are just anticompetitive groups that are around because of the government.

Due to Nixon and his attempts to get universal healthcare.

45% doesn't count that....

if your wondering around 28% of the country is currently covered under government programs.


The government spends between 45% and 56.1% of healthcare costs to cover 28% of the people... and they're the ones who are going to make things cheaper... somehow.

Not to mention that there is overlap and some of that 28% get private healthcare as well.

Well that should be obvious. The 28% they're covering are the old, disabled, and poor, who would naturally rack up the most health-care costs

That's a good point.  Regardless... government healthcare just doesn't work outside of small countries... because it always leads to rationing... that ends up robbing people who are paying for treatment of treatment.



Kasz216 on 19 July 2009
Slimebeast said:
Kasz216 said:
Slimebeast said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:

Yeah, i've always wondered why people raise hell about us "not being able to choose our own doctors" when that's more or less what we have now. Currently i'm not satisfied with my dermatologist, and wanted to change. There aren't too many in my region, and the nearest one outside the one i want to get rid of is not in my family's plan's network, so no go.

 

What would we be losing if it was the government telling us who couldn't treat us, and not some corporation?

They already are.... HMO's exist because of the government.

Apparently 45% of Healthcare spending is currently due to the government.

 

Just 45? If HMO's count under that, shouldn't it be more? I thought the HMO was the standard for most Americans

HMO's don't count for that.  HMO's are just anticompetitive groups that are around because of the government.

Due to Nixon and his attempts to get universal healthcare.

45% doesn't count that....

if your wondering around 28% of the country is currently covered under government programs.

 

The government spends between 45% and 56.1% of healthcare costs to cover 28% of the people... and they're the ones who are going to make things cheaper... somehow.

Not to mention that there is overlap and some of that 28% get private healthcare as well.


Sorry for interfering but I dont follow, and this sounds interesting.

Whats HMO and all these numbers?

What does "The government spends between 45% and 56.1% of healthcare costs to cover 28% of the people" refer to, in detail?

Basically 45 to 56 cents out of every dollar spent on healthcare is spent by the government.  To cover 28% of the people.

Leaving 44 to 55 cents out of every dollar spent on healthcare to cover 68% Of the people from the private sector.

 

HMO's are "Health Maitenince Orginzations."

Basically it's health insurance that only applies to certain doctors in certain areas.

I've never had one myself.  I opt to pay for regular health insurance.

I dont get it. Isnt the government funded health care cheap and low standard? While private funded health care is expensive and better quality.

Not always.  In some states it's expensive and high standard... and in some like New York it's both expensive and low standard.

We do it state to state currently.  So it gets mixed results.

 

Ohio for example has excellent Medicaid.  Which is surprising considering it's Ohio... and the state in general is screwed up economically.



TheRealMafoo on 19 July 2009
Slimebeast said:
Khuutra said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Khuutra said:
TheRealMafoo said:

So in the UK, you can't go to any hospital you want? It's based on where you live?

This is one of the weirdest assumptions about socialized healthcare. I mean, I know insurance companies have approved lists of hospitals that you can or can't go to, but I've never heard of that sort of thing in socialized countries - though, granted, the only ones I've bothered to look into are Canada and the UK.

I asked the question because the issue if wait times comes up a lot, but he never has them. If his hospital never has wait times, why don't people just go to his hospital?

The only reason I could think, was you could not go to just any hospital.

And education is socialized in the US, and you can't go to any school. Your choices are based on where you live.

Yeah, but you can't equate "this issue is well-documented" with "this issue comes up more often than it doesn't". Hell, Kingston General's wait times were never too bad any of the times I had to go there, either for myself or when taking people who lived in residence. And that's in a college town where people get sick about as often as you please.

Your reasoning does not seem to hold water, since you can go to different hospitals. So what would the reason be? I think it's more likely that the answer is convenience: people just like going to hospitals that are closer, usually.

And I know education is (mostly) socialized in the US, but that ain't got much to do with systems outside of the US, now do it?


In Sweden (socialized health care) people in general can't choose a hospital or specialist. You can under certain conditions, but it's usually complicated - there's a general rule: only if your county's hospital(s) have a wait time of more than 3 months, you are allowed to seek treatment in another county's hospitals or specialists (but in practice they cheat with those 3 months, which become 4-5 months).

Doesn't seem so dumb a question now, does it Khuutra? ;)



Around the Network
Khuutra on 19 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Slimebeast said:
Khuutra said:

Yeah, but you can't equate "this issue is well-documented" with "this issue comes up more often than it doesn't". Hell, Kingston General's wait times were never too bad any of the times I had to go there, either for myself or when taking people who lived in residence. And that's in a college town where people get sick about as often as you please.

Your reasoning does not seem to hold water, since you can go to different hospitals. So what would the reason be? I think it's more likely that the answer is convenience: people just like going to hospitals that are closer, usually.

And I know education is (mostly) socialized in the US, but that ain't got much to do with systems outside of the US, now do it?


In Sweden (socialized health care) people in general can't choose a hospital or specialist. You can under certain conditions, but it's usually complicated - there's a general rule: only if your county's hospital(s) have a wait time of more than 3 months, you are allowed to seek treatment in another county's hospitals or specialists (but in practice they cheat with those 3 months, which become 4-5 months).

Doesn't seem so dumb a question now, does it Khuutra? ;)

Thanks for the info, slimebeast.

But nah, everything I said still stands.



TheRealMafoo on 19 July 2009
Khuutra said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Slimebeast said:
Khuutra said:

Yeah, but you can't equate "this issue is well-documented" with "this issue comes up more often than it doesn't". Hell, Kingston General's wait times were never too bad any of the times I had to go there, either for myself or when taking people who lived in residence. And that's in a college town where people get sick about as often as you please.

Your reasoning does not seem to hold water, since you can go to different hospitals. So what would the reason be? I think it's more likely that the answer is convenience: people just like going to hospitals that are closer, usually.

And I know education is (mostly) socialized in the US, but that ain't got much to do with systems outside of the US, now do it?


In Sweden (socialized health care) people in general can't choose a hospital or specialist. You can under certain conditions, but it's usually complicated - there's a general rule: only if your county's hospital(s) have a wait time of more than 3 months, you are allowed to seek treatment in another county's hospitals or specialists (but in practice they cheat with those 3 months, which become 4-5 months).

Doesn't seem so dumb a question now, does it Khuutra? ;)

Thanks for the info, slimebeast.

But nah, everything I said still stands.

But you do realize, that in the US, there are NO wait times. You need something, you get it.

Why would you want to lose that?



fmc83 on 19 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Khuutra said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Slimebeast said:
Khuutra said:

Yeah, but you can't equate "this issue is well-documented" with "this issue comes up more often than it doesn't". Hell, Kingston General's wait times were never too bad any of the times I had to go there, either for myself or when taking people who lived in residence. And that's in a college town where people get sick about as often as you please.

Your reasoning does not seem to hold water, since you can go to different hospitals. So what would the reason be? I think it's more likely that the answer is convenience: people just like going to hospitals that are closer, usually.

And I know education is (mostly) socialized in the US, but that ain't got much to do with systems outside of the US, now do it?


In Sweden (socialized health care) people in general can't choose a hospital or specialist. You can under certain conditions, but it's usually complicated - there's a general rule: only if your county's hospital(s) have a wait time of more than 3 months, you are allowed to seek treatment in another county's hospitals or specialists (but in practice they cheat with those 3 months, which become 4-5 months).

Doesn't seem so dumb a question now, does it Khuutra? ;)

Thanks for the info, slimebeast.

But nah, everything I said still stands.

But you do realize, that in the US, there are NO wait times. You need something, you get it.

Why would you want to lose that?

While i fully trust our Dr. Slimebeast with his talk about Sweden, I still must wonder, why you always go for the extreme cases.

 

I argued it before, but there are others systems, like the German one, where private and social health care work happily site by site and you can choose which one you want to join (social health care is still run by different kind of private corporations). The thing is just, that you can't choose if you join one of those at all. You got to join one.

 

So the question at the beginning you should ask yourself is not "hell, are all going to pay the same?", but "should some kind of healthcare be mandatory?"



http://nintendo-geheimtipps.blogspot.com

Khuutra on 19 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Khuutra said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Slimebeast said:


In Sweden (socialized health care) people in general can't choose a hospital or specialist. You can under certain conditions, but it's usually complicated - there's a general rule: only if your county's hospital(s) have a wait time of more than 3 months, you are allowed to seek treatment in another county's hospitals or specialists (but in practice they cheat with those 3 months, which become 4-5 months).

Doesn't seem so dumb a question now, does it Khuutra? ;)

Thanks for the info, slimebeast.

But nah, everything I said still stands.

But you do realize, that in the US, there are NO wait times. You need something, you get it.

Why would you want to lose that?

Of course I don't. Wait times happen everywhere, including in the US, but we'e good about it.

If we can pay for it.

But I think that universal health care is better than quicker healthcare for some. That's all there is.

No, some people cannot get health insurance, regardless of whether or not they want to, and health insurance does not actually insure that you will receive coverage. If you want to start talking about horror stories that don't represent that average but are still stunning, I will pull out Sicko. I will do it. Moore may not be much of a filmmaker (not going to call him a documentarian) but he's pretty good at collecting horror stories about people who are denied coverage by their insurance for stupid, stupid reasons.

Anyway, yeah. Universal healthcare is best, by my reckoning. That's all there is.



NJ5 on 19 July 2009

Universal health care is like democracy. It may suck, but it's the best we have.

The US system of losing health care when unemployed just sucks, plain and simple. (at least that's how I think it works after hearing a lot about it).



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957