Health Care Hypocrisy

[B_crackoff]

They can start with Defense spending. There's plenty of places where unnecessary funding can be trimmed down here, especially once the two wars in the Middle East come to a complete end. It's not as if that hasn't been stated before, despite how some people continue to ignore it through fear of being attacked by Mohammed.

Unfortunately, defence spending always seems to be "borrowed" funds that just put the US further in debt. Permanently borrowing for healthcare (without the spoils of war) isn't sustainable either.

I'm not partisan here, I think it's sickening that in the US people have to queue once in a blue moon to get seen by a doctor.

I seem to remember that the proposals that went through last year also ignored the fact that companies contributing medical insurance to employees at the lower level, would probably stop doing so.

If you look at the (Western) countries with free healthcare, they all have very high direct & indirect taxation rates - starting at quite a low threshhold.

To have universal free healthcare in the U.S., therefore, would necessarily meaning low paid workers having less cash in their pockets. Definitely sensible, & pragmatic over a lifetime, but would they go for it, & who would be able to sell those proposals to the people?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

To have universal free healthcare in the U.S., therefore, would necessarily meaning low paid workers having less cash in their pockets. Definitely sensible, & pragmatic over a lifetime, but would they go for it, & who would be able to sell those proposals to the people?

Many would considering that some wages are dropping for low paid workers anyhow, regardless if they have a form of health care or not. Also, nobody referred to the Health Care Reform bill as being "free" so please nix that from your statement.

 

[Industrialsize]

MEDICARE FOR EVERYONE!
We already have the system in place.

 

[simbablk]

In my opinion, part of the issue with our political system IS politics. We have too many people in our congress that don't seem to be able to think for themselves. They instead opt for the "party" to think for them. Whatever the party says, that's what they do. Then we as the people they are supposed to be serving are often left wondering - WTF?

This goes for all parties. I think, in order to REALLY get things done in Congress, we should do away with all party systems. We should make the candidates run on their own words and their own solutions. Make them have to be truly vetted by the people. Is this candidate speaking to your needs or is s/he merely spewing the same garbage as the rest of the party? Instead of candidates being elected because we have animosity or issues with a particular party, we elect candidates because they truly speak to our issues and we feel they will listen to our cries for help.

This healthcare bill is an example of what I'm talking about. Many (not all) of the Democrats voted for the bill simply because it was drafted by a Democratic President. Most Republicans (not all) did not want the bill passed (for many varied reasons) and voted against it. All in all, it was passed. NOW, we have the Republicans, who during their campaign spewed garbage about fiscal and financial responsibility, are now trying to jockey to have the bill repealed - potentially adding more to the already ballooning deficit (allegedly). So instead of spending our time fixing what has already been enacted, we waste time and taxpayer money jockeying for position instead of trying to work together to fix a common problem. I think if we didn't have political parties, there might be less congress men/women involving themselves in this ridiculous back and forth that we see on CSPAN daily. IF they had to stand on their own two feet instead of the shaky foundation of a donkey or an elephant, they MIGHT get more done.

It's a stretch of the imagination, I'll give you that. But it's my utopia and I can imagine whatever I want.

Simba

 

[Industrialsize]

This goes for all parties. I think, in order to REALLY get things done in Congress, we should do away with all party systems. We should make the candidates run on their own words and their own solutions. Make them have to be truly vetted by the people. Is this candidate speaking to your needs or is s/he merely spewing the same garbage as the rest of the party? Instead of candidates being elected because we have animosity or issues with a particular party, we elect candidates because they truly speak to our issues and we feel they will listen to our cries for help.



Simba

So what is stopping you from doing the above with our current political system?

 

[FRE]

In my opinion, part of the issue with our political system IS politics. We have too many people in our congress that don't seem to be able to think for themselves. They instead opt for the "party" to think for them. Whatever the party says, that's what they do. Then we as the people they are supposed to be serving are often left wondering - WTF?

This goes for all parties. I think, in order to REALLY get things done in Congress, we should do away with all party systems. We should make the candidates run on their own words and their own solutions. Make them have to be truly vetted by the people. Is this candidate speaking to your needs or is s/he merely spewing the same garbage as the rest of the party? Instead of candidates being elected because we have animosity or issues with a particular party, we elect candidates because they truly speak to our issues and we feel they will listen to our cries for help.

This healthcare bill is an example of what I'm talking about. Many (not all) of the Democrats voted for the bill simply because it was drafted by a Democratic President. Most Republicans (not all) did not want the bill passed (for many varied reasons) and voted against it. All in all, it was passed. NOW, we have the Republicans, who during their campaign spewed garbage about fiscal and financial responsibility, are now trying to jockey to have the bill repealed - potentially adding more to the already ballooning deficit (allegedly). So instead of spending our time fixing what has already been enacted, we waste time and taxpayer money jockeying for position instead of trying to work together to fix a common problem. I think if we didn't have political parties, there might be less congress men/women involving themselves in this ridiculous back and forth that we see on CSPAN daily. IF they had to stand on their own two feet instead of the shaky foundation of a donkey or an elephant, they MIGHT get more done.

It's a stretch of the imagination, I'll give you that. But it's my utopia and I can imagine whatever I want.

Simba

What you say certainly has merit. However, I very much doubt that political parties will ever be eliminated. I've never even heard of a country without political parties. Perhaps they are a necessary evil.

 

[B_crackoff]

Many would considering that some wages are dropping for low paid workers anyhow, regardless if they have a form of health care or not. Also, nobody referred to the Health Care Reform bill as being "free" so please nix that from your statement.

"Free" as in publicly funded! What's the difference? Everyone in any universal healthcare system neither has to pay for treatment, nor fill in any claim forms, or pay a 3rd party provider.

It's all paid for by taxation. I suppose you don't have free education in the US either. It's the exact same principal.

Anything short of that's a crock of shit!

 

[houtx48]

I have a friend that write billing software for hospitals and i was looking through some of the unit cost basis and a electrocardiogram was billed at $3.00 hospital cost, I amsure that does not include the cost off labor to administer, but I get one several times a year at $200.00 a pop with a 20% discount for cash out of pocket. The system is broken and I am not sure who to blame. I can no longer afford to buy the insurance that nobody will sell me.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

"Free" as in publicly funded! What's the difference? Everyone in any universal healthcare system neither has to pay for treatment, nor fill in any claim forms, or pay a 3rd party provider.
It's all paid for by taxation.

Duh, McFly. Ultimately we know that any kind of universal healthcare system isn't "free", no matter how you look at it. Don't assume you're telling me or anyone else paying attention to this thread something we don't know here. Your implication of doltishness is noted and won't be tolerated.

I suppose you don't have free education in the US either. It's the exact same principal.

Wow... you came up with that one all by yourself?

Anything short of that's a crock of shit!

Well I can think of plenty of other things that are short and full of feces, but I'll refrain from mentioning the obvious. I get really sick and tired of people like you assuming that you're talking to a bunch of children in here. We're all adults and certain things are understood even before you try to articulate them in your brief, frayed-wire sense of enlightenment. Now make your point before I fall asleep.

 

[FRE]

"Free" as in publicly funded! What's the difference? Everyone in any universal healthcare system neither has to pay for treatment, nor fill in any claim forms, or pay a 3rd party provider.

It's all paid for by taxation. I suppose you don't have free education in the US either. It's the exact same principal.

Anything short of that's a crock of shit!

Here's the difference.

Sure, we know that "free" healthcare is publicly funded and that what we mean by "free" is that, although there are no charges to the user, the taxpayers are paying. However, the radical right assumes that when we say "free," we are assuming that a fairy godmother pays for it. Therefore, to avoid providing the radical right with ammunition, it is probably better to avoid using the word "free" and, instead, use the term taxpayer funded thereby making it impossible for the radical right to accuse us of really believing that there is no cost to anyone.

And please, do not confuse the radical right with conservative; there is a difference.

 

[D_Abraham Slinkin]

All 'Politics' is now in most Western Countries is a battle of advertising where by the Richest Candidate with the most friends in high places wins.
If we really wanted 'Democracy', we'd ban almost all political advertising, ban all Private political donations and have a completely Proportional Representative system where all the votes nationwide were added up and divided exactly according to the results.

The US & UK preaches democracy to the world - in the US the president can appoint who ever (un elected officials) to run the country, and in the UK we have an unelected monarch and a Senate filled with people who were born into their Job or Appointed there by old Prime Ministers.

Democracy my arse. It's just a dictatorship covered in democratic paint.

 

[B_crackoff]

Well I can think of plenty of other things that are short and full of feces, but I'll refrain from mentioning the obvious. I get really sick and tired of people like you assuming that you're talking to a bunch of children in here. We're all adults and certain things are understood even before you try to articulate them in your brief, frayed-wire sense of enlightenment. Now make your point before I fall asleep.

"People like you"!! That's the racist's, sexist's, & genderist's buzzword. The preamble for hate.

You've outed yourself here as the biggest bigot on the block. Award yourself first prize, & treat your friend David Duke:tongue:

Yet again, you've started another fight with yourself. Finding yourself with no ammunition, you've made up your own story. Will you ever desist? Are you that bored? There was nothing here I put even slightly controversial.

Chill out & have a Donut!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

"People like you"!! That's the racist's, sexist's, & genderist's buzzword. The preamble for hate.

You've outed yourself here as the biggest bigot on the block. Award yourself first prize, & treat your friend David Duke:tongue:

Yet again, you've started another fight with yourself. Finding yourself with no ammunition, you've made up your own story. Will you ever desist? Are you that bored? There was nothing here I put even slightly controversial.

Chill out & have a Donut!

That's only if I was judging you based on your sex (which I wasn't), your race (which I also wasn't), your religion (which I don't care), your nationality (which I wouldn't give two shits if you were from Mars), your sexual preference (which I wouldn't care if you were asexual), or your gender (which I couldn't careless if you had a vagina with teeth or a penis with a tongue between your legs). I was referring to stupid people... and yes, you are just that. And last time I checked, stupid is neither a "protected class" or a definable trait that is protected by any hate crime legislation or anti-discrimination laws. So you know where you can shove your bigotry claims.

But thanks for playing anyhow. Now do you have anything worthy to contribute or shall I put you back on ignore? I swear, the stupid people really have it out for me today.

 

[FRE]

All 'Politics' is now in most Western Countries is a battle of advertising where by the Richest Candidate with the most friends in high places wins.
If we really wanted 'Democracy', we'd ban almost all political advertising, ban all Private political donations and have a completely Proportional Representative system where all the votes nationwide were added up and divided exactly according to the results.

The US & UK preaches democracy to the world - in the US the president can appoint who ever (un elected officials) to run the country, and in the UK we have an unelected monarch and a Senate filled with people who were born into their Job or Appointed there by old Prime Ministers.

Democracy my arse. It's just a dictatorship covered in democratic paint.

Probably you're talking about the fact that the U.S. appoints cabinet members who are not elected whereas in the UK, cabinet ministers are appointed from Parliament. Actually, the U.S. system of appointed cabinet members is far superior.

In the UK, it is unclear just whom the cabinet ministers are supposed to be representing. If they acted in the interest of those who elected them, then they would not necessarily be acting in the interests of the country as a whole and, if they acted in the interest of the country or the PM, then they might have to ignore the interests of those who elected them. Thus, in a sense, if a MP is appointed as a cabinet minister, then the voters who elected him lose a representative. Moreover, cabinet ministers have to be chosen from a group of politicians and that can make it impossible to choose cabinet ministers with the experience and expertise necessary to do their jobs properly.

Here in the U.S., when a cabinet member is chosen, no district loses a representative. Moreover, the president can choose cabinet members who are experienced experts. Thus, for example, the surgeon general can be highly experienced in the field of medicine. If the surgeon general had to be chosen from Congress, it might be impossible to find someone with the needed experience. That isn't to say that our system is perfect since there is no guarantee that the president will chose highly qualified people for the cabinet, but at least he is able to do so whereas in the UK, that could be impossible for some positions.

 

[simbablk]

So what is stopping you from doing the above with our current political system?

In our current political system, it's hard to find candidates who are telling you their own plans for action rather than the parties plan for action. I do vote according to my former statement. I have voted, and will continue to do, across the political aisle when a candidate best speaks to my issues. The problem is, you're being forced to choose the lessor of evils when most of the candidates are basically reading the same script as the party.

Simba

 

[simbablk]

What you say certainly has merit. However, I very much doubt that political parties will ever be eliminated. I've never even heard of a country without political parties. Perhaps they are a necessary evil.

And you're right - political parties probably do hold some importance in the system. And you're also right (as I am fully aware), political parties will never be eliminated. I'm just speaking my view about the current political climate we see in the US. In my opinion, it is party lines that are keeping us from seeing true forward progress in our congressional houses. If the men and women in congress were REALLY about the people, there would be less idiotic foolishness taking place and more business being conducted. What we see now isn't the people's business, it's politics. That's all I'm saying.

Simba

 

[MercyfulFate]

I hope it gets repealed because mandatory insurance does NOT work. I already deal with it where I am and it's a load of crap.

 

[FRE]

And you're right - political parties probably do hold some importance in the system. And you're also right (as I am fully aware), political parties will never be eliminated. I'm just speaking my view about the current political climate we see in the US. In my opinion, it is party lines that are keeping us from seeing true forward progress in our congressional houses. If the men and women in congress were REALLY about the people, there would be less idiotic foolishness taking place and more business being conducted. What we see now isn't the people's business, it's politics. That's all I'm saying.

Simba

I certainly agree with that.

The problem lies not in the mere existence of political parties, but rather, in bloc voting.

 

[FRE]

I hope it gets repealed because mandatory insurance does NOT work. I already deal with it where I am and it's a load of crap.

How would you solve the problem of spreading the risk in a fair manner without mandatory insurance?

Suppose, for example, that a healthy man (or woman) decides not to get insurance because he is quite healthy. Then, a few years later, he develops cancer which is extremely expensive to treat and he cannot afford the treatment. Should he be left to die? Should health care providers treat him and charge everyone else more to cover the cost of treating uninsured patients?

Or suppose that AFTER a man gets cancer, he buys health insurance THEN goes for treatment and the insurance pays for the treatment. That would mean that those of us who had health insurance all along would have to pay higher rates to cover those who did not get health insurance 'til they became ill. Would that be acceptable?

Without having mandatory health insurance, how would you deal with the above situations?

 

[MercyfulFate]

How would you solve the problem of spreading the risk in a fair manner without mandatory insurance?

Suppose, for example, that a healthy man (or woman) decides not to get insurance because he is quite healthy. Then, a few years later, he develops cancer which is extremely expensive to treat and he cannot afford the treatment. Should he be left to die? Should health care providers treat him and charge everyone else more to cover the cost of treating uninsured patients?

Or suppose that AFTER a man gets cancer, he buys health insurance THEN goes for treatment and the insurance pays for the treatment. That would mean that those of us who had health insurance all along would have to pay higher rates to cover those who did not get health insurance 'til they became ill. Would that be acceptable?

Without having mandatory health insurance, how would you deal with the above situations?

Massachusetts already has mandatory insurance, and mind you mandatory insurance was shoehorned into the Healthcare Reform by the Insurance Industry. It wasn't put there to lower costs or anything to benefit us.

The premiums in MA have gone up the same, if not more since Mitt Romney put it in place. It doesn't fix anything, the statistics already showed that.

All it is, is a ploy by the industry to get more money. They essentially told Obama if he didn't include it, they would fight the whole thing tooth and nail.

Everything else is lies and propaganda, like it spreads costs, or blah blah. It's simply not true.