View Poll Results: Universal Health Care. For or against?
For it!
5
29.41%
Against it!
11
64.71%
I'm just going with the flow..
1
5.88%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll
May I touch on a touchy subject here?
#21
08-05-2009, 12:13 AM
Lots of folks have valid points to bring to the table. We're not all gonna agree on everything but I thought those specific comments by Pat in his book were germane to the health care Bill being written. Specifically as it regards the elderly. It really sums up alot of their fears.
M
M
#22
08-05-2009, 12:44 AM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Indianapolis and Toledo
Posts: 5,599
Well, I have a huge health care savings account that I just renamed, it is now the Cuban hooker care account! I save a lot of money just in a savings account where I have full control. It doesn't make a lot of money, but at least I havent lost it on the stock market like a lot of my friends. So therefore, my hooker account is always safe from the polititions and hopefully, the doctors.
#23
08-06-2009, 06:59 PM
it wont work. all there is to it. not only will the system fail epically and go bankrupt in a handful of years, those few years will be hell for the poor bastards that had the misfortune of actually having to use it. ive talked to several canadians and they all said the same thing, it sucks. the idea isnt that when youre in need of a medical bill, the goverment pays for it. canada's system (our model/what were shooting for) goes like this... youre sick, you go to a goverment doctor, they tell you whats worng, they schedule you a time and doctor (yes, they tell you who what where and when) and you get a grade b treatment. also, they arent allowed to segerate. that means if i got cancer id get treatment. if i got in a terrible accident due to another person driving drunk id get treatment, if i was robbed at work and got shot id get treatment. however if i ate at mcdonalds all the time and needed a heart transplant id get treatment, if i became a raging alcoholic and needed a new liver id get treatment. people will no longer look at medical bils like a problem because its all "free". also, have you heard about obama's plan to try it out in newyork. i spare the details because i have to get to work but it involves a 60% income tax on a certian group of people to pay for. never going to work.
#24
08-06-2009, 09:35 PM
Here's why I think it would never work.
The cash for clunkers program is a fine example. When the government can't even successfully handle a small program like that, what makes you think they're going to be able to handle 20% of the countries entire economy. I'm sorry for all you people who like him, because some people think he's an angel sent from heaven, but I think Obama is really sending America down the drain.
Ever been to the Department of Licensing, grabbed a number, and sat in a hot, stuffy, crowded room for an hour? Imagine doing this every time you need to see a doctor, but only waiting for 6 hours. Not only this, but the treatment won't be worth the wait. See, because they're trying to treat so many people they generalize treatments. Cut off the leg instead of taking out the clot sort of thing.
This is why all the worlds leaders come to America for their treatments. And this is also why the senators, the government high ups, the president. This is why they're not going to submit with universal health care. They'll get their own kind.
The cash for clunkers program is a fine example. When the government can't even successfully handle a small program like that, what makes you think they're going to be able to handle 20% of the countries entire economy. I'm sorry for all you people who like him, because some people think he's an angel sent from heaven, but I think Obama is really sending America down the drain.
Ever been to the Department of Licensing, grabbed a number, and sat in a hot, stuffy, crowded room for an hour? Imagine doing this every time you need to see a doctor, but only waiting for 6 hours. Not only this, but the treatment won't be worth the wait. See, because they're trying to treat so many people they generalize treatments. Cut off the leg instead of taking out the clot sort of thing.
This is why all the worlds leaders come to America for their treatments. And this is also why the senators, the government high ups, the president. This is why they're not going to submit with universal health care. They'll get their own kind.
#26
08-11-2009, 02:44 AM
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!! ALABAMA #1 SEC CHAMPIONS!!
Posts: 1,327
I'm not going to read through all this because its too much but my opinion is:
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! ABSOLUTELY NO!
I refuse to assume financial responibility for individuals who do not care to work and contribute to society. I work and I pay for my insurance. I also pay for the doctor bills that come after I use the insurance I pay for. I think it is a bad idea to put everyone on the same playing field. We need to go back to the view of dominance and order. Natural selection will eventually begin to occur and weed out the unproductive and unnecessary individuals living in our society. I am sick and tired of the people who receive government assistance endorse such federal assistance programs. How about let the people who actually contribute to the pool of money be the ones to make the decisions on this. I guarantee you the people who actually contribute will not vote for such idioticricy!
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! ABSOLUTELY NO!
I refuse to assume financial responibility for individuals who do not care to work and contribute to society. I work and I pay for my insurance. I also pay for the doctor bills that come after I use the insurance I pay for. I think it is a bad idea to put everyone on the same playing field. We need to go back to the view of dominance and order. Natural selection will eventually begin to occur and weed out the unproductive and unnecessary individuals living in our society. I am sick and tired of the people who receive government assistance endorse such federal assistance programs. How about let the people who actually contribute to the pool of money be the ones to make the decisions on this. I guarantee you the people who actually contribute will not vote for such idioticricy!
#27
08-11-2009, 03:42 AM
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of Sun, Sand and Thorns - AZ
Posts: 1,484
#28
08-11-2009, 11:42 AM
I'll make a couple of comments.
I was working in Florida a few years ago closing down a factory and transferring the work to the UK.
The staff of about 400 people lost their health coverage with their jobs. THat's morally wrong. Worse, as many of them were in their 40s and 50s a lot of them had high blood pressure, arthritic conditions and similar ailments. At this stage in their lives, no more than minor inconveniences, but because of pre-existing condition rules the guy taking anti-imflammatories for a hip that was nowhere ready for needing surgery lost his chance of insurance cover for when the surgery would be needed a few years down the road.
Second point. Your current system often fails to deliver the best treatment. A new hip prosthesis that gives a full range of normal movement and could last a life time is obviously prefferable to a prosthesis that allows only a limited range of movement without a severe risk of dislocation and needs revision after about 8 years in an active patient. Because it wasn't a US developed prosthesis the FDA delayed for several years on giving it approval, which allowed most insurers to refuse paying for it and let most surgeons ignore it - it takes a little bit of extra skill and care to install properly. Where it was available in the States, as an 'experimental' procedure, the cost was so high that even with air fares and accomodation a lot of patients found it cheaper in India and Belgium. It's still not readily available in the States despite approval being granted about 4 years ago.
The UK's universal health care works. Access to GPs is unrestricted, as is treatment at A&E dpartments. Specialist appointments can have a short wait - sometimes about a month - but not for life threatening cases, and there is an on-line booking service after the initial GP referral to a specialist, so you can book the specialist you want at the hospital you want on the basis of treatment, reputation, convenience or waiting time. Suspected cancer cases, as an example, are seen by a consultant within 48 hours.
The cost is considerably less than the cost of America's inferior health care. That's very good, but not world leading, for most people and appallingly poor for a very large minority.
Nothing is perfect. There is rationing under any system, but it only applies to non-cost effective or unproven treatments. There are ****-ups and poor hospitals, but the reason that you see so much about them is that they're so rare that they make a big splash in the papers. THe States has the same sort of rationing. See my comments above about hips.
My last crash had me collected by ambulance, treated in A&E and ready to go home in the space of 2 hours. X-rayed, Scanned, wounds dressed, sprained ankle strapped up and wrist in plaster. I needed surgery on a broken bone in my wrist. As I'm a keyboard player I got the services of the local expert to ensure that any stiffness or loss of movement in my thumb was minimised. That meant going home with my wrist in plaster and returning two days later for surgery. Home again the following day. Six weeks later, the wires out and plaster off and physio was already lined up. It took about 6 months before my wrist stopped aching a bit on long rides. The cost was zero and my private health insurer paid me because the surgery and one night hospital stay was on the NHS.
Other countries have different models of universal health care, all with some advantages and some disadvantages. Canada's system appears particularly poor, and that's the model that many American's tend to look at first.
On cost to you as an individual, you have to weigh the extra tax against the saving you make in insurance. If you're employer pays your health care, then there's an element of hypocrisy in complaining that you'll have to start paying something some yourself. Freed of healthcare costs your employer can become more profitable, make your job more secure, give you a big payrise, or pocket the savings himself and leave you with the bill through your extra tax. That says more about your employer than it does about the concept of universal health care.
And beware - it's OK saying 'sad about Fred's pre-existing condition but better that than I pay more...' Next time the pre-existing condition might be yours.
Chick - we are social animals. That's the way we evolved. Those of us who fail to realise that, and follow the path of self interest over the needs of the group may learn about Darwins ideas by becoming extinct themselves. Love your written English, by the way. It's very.........idiosyncratic.
Rob
I was working in Florida a few years ago closing down a factory and transferring the work to the UK.
The staff of about 400 people lost their health coverage with their jobs. THat's morally wrong. Worse, as many of them were in their 40s and 50s a lot of them had high blood pressure, arthritic conditions and similar ailments. At this stage in their lives, no more than minor inconveniences, but because of pre-existing condition rules the guy taking anti-imflammatories for a hip that was nowhere ready for needing surgery lost his chance of insurance cover for when the surgery would be needed a few years down the road.
Second point. Your current system often fails to deliver the best treatment. A new hip prosthesis that gives a full range of normal movement and could last a life time is obviously prefferable to a prosthesis that allows only a limited range of movement without a severe risk of dislocation and needs revision after about 8 years in an active patient. Because it wasn't a US developed prosthesis the FDA delayed for several years on giving it approval, which allowed most insurers to refuse paying for it and let most surgeons ignore it - it takes a little bit of extra skill and care to install properly. Where it was available in the States, as an 'experimental' procedure, the cost was so high that even with air fares and accomodation a lot of patients found it cheaper in India and Belgium. It's still not readily available in the States despite approval being granted about 4 years ago.
The UK's universal health care works. Access to GPs is unrestricted, as is treatment at A&E dpartments. Specialist appointments can have a short wait - sometimes about a month - but not for life threatening cases, and there is an on-line booking service after the initial GP referral to a specialist, so you can book the specialist you want at the hospital you want on the basis of treatment, reputation, convenience or waiting time. Suspected cancer cases, as an example, are seen by a consultant within 48 hours.
The cost is considerably less than the cost of America's inferior health care. That's very good, but not world leading, for most people and appallingly poor for a very large minority.
Nothing is perfect. There is rationing under any system, but it only applies to non-cost effective or unproven treatments. There are ****-ups and poor hospitals, but the reason that you see so much about them is that they're so rare that they make a big splash in the papers. THe States has the same sort of rationing. See my comments above about hips.
My last crash had me collected by ambulance, treated in A&E and ready to go home in the space of 2 hours. X-rayed, Scanned, wounds dressed, sprained ankle strapped up and wrist in plaster. I needed surgery on a broken bone in my wrist. As I'm a keyboard player I got the services of the local expert to ensure that any stiffness or loss of movement in my thumb was minimised. That meant going home with my wrist in plaster and returning two days later for surgery. Home again the following day. Six weeks later, the wires out and plaster off and physio was already lined up. It took about 6 months before my wrist stopped aching a bit on long rides. The cost was zero and my private health insurer paid me because the surgery and one night hospital stay was on the NHS.
Other countries have different models of universal health care, all with some advantages and some disadvantages. Canada's system appears particularly poor, and that's the model that many American's tend to look at first.
On cost to you as an individual, you have to weigh the extra tax against the saving you make in insurance. If you're employer pays your health care, then there's an element of hypocrisy in complaining that you'll have to start paying something some yourself. Freed of healthcare costs your employer can become more profitable, make your job more secure, give you a big payrise, or pocket the savings himself and leave you with the bill through your extra tax. That says more about your employer than it does about the concept of universal health care.
And beware - it's OK saying 'sad about Fred's pre-existing condition but better that than I pay more...' Next time the pre-existing condition might be yours.
Chick - we are social animals. That's the way we evolved. Those of us who fail to realise that, and follow the path of self interest over the needs of the group may learn about Darwins ideas by becoming extinct themselves. Love your written English, by the way. It's very.........idiosyncratic.
Rob
Last edited by williamr; 08-11-2009 at 12:01 PM.
#30
08-12-2009, 12:07 AM
if we werent outsourcing that wouldnt be a problem.
yup, and thats why ours isnt going to work... thats our model. were shooting for an f-level system