jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 12:22:42 GMT -5
Well, like i said, I didn't read the article as the link didn't work. i reinserted it, ib. did you click it again?But if the issue was financial security, that would seem to suggest that they didn't have access to any sort of insurance. Whether it's UHC paid via increased taxes or insurance paid directly, that tends to address the financial insecurity. So yes, UHC is better than nothing, and insurnace is better than nothing. The question is, which is better? here is the thing, ib. weird health stuff happens. people may gamble on their health thinking that nothing will go wrong to make economic decisions such as sending a kid to school or buying a house. when they are diagnosed with a rare form of cancer at 34, their life is destroyed, and they lose everything. this benefits nobody. it does not benefit them, obviously. it doesn't benefit their family, which is thrown into chaos and ruin. it doesn't benefit anyone connected with them, who may have relied on their work or friendship. and it doesn't benefit society as a whole, who in a "there but for the grace of god go i" mode, will pull money out of the economy to preserve themselves against such a possibility. what makes you think that any of these things would NOT be fixed by UHC? UHC will most likely mean less access to care because of a mixture of increased demand and lack of resources. So the person in this example feels something is wrong, can't get in to see their doctor for over six months, the cancer meanwhile metastisises and is now untreatable. UHC does not fix the problem with lack of doctors, and may very well increase the problem. UHC does not mean higher quality care, and may very well lead to decreased quality for all. UHC does not lower the costs of care, especially with the letigious lawyers still in the mix, so all it will do is add further debt/tax burdens on all (or at least those that will actually end up paying for it, as we all know there will always be those members of society that goverment will give everything to for "free"). UHC may solve some problems, but all it will do is trade one set of problems with another. Personally, I feel the trade off will be a bigger detrement to everyone more than a positive outcome for a few.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 12:27:00 GMT -5
I've always heard (I'm no expert on insurance, certainly) that insurance becomes less expensive as the number of people you have enrolled with that particular insurance provider grows. Why, then, would it not be true that insurance would be less expensive for the individual if all people were enrolled with the same provider? Because you just eliminated choice, which eliminates competition, which means the one source can now charge whatever they want and the "customers" have zero say in it. Think of utilities and other monopolies...when was the last time you were able to switch utility companies when you disagreed with a rate increase?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 12:33:05 GMT -5
If the country you lived in, formerexpat, wasn't Canada, I'll still listen to those who are currently living in Canada and experiencing that system. While I realize it's not perfect, there aren't many things that are perfect. I strongly feel our system needs to be better than it is, and needs to serve our people better than it is currently serving them. I'm not about to throw the baby out with the bathwater because some systems aren't the epitome. Yet you are advocating that for your southern neighbors...how hypocritical of you
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 14, 2012 12:35:00 GMT -5
I've always heard (I'm no expert on insurance, certainly) that insurance becomes less expensive as the number of people you have enrolled with that particular insurance provider grows. Why, then, would it not be true that insurance would be less expensive for the individual if all people were enrolled with the same provider? Because you just eliminated choice, which eliminates competition, which means the one source can now charge whatever they want and the "customers" have zero say in it. Think of utilities and other monopolies...when was the last time you were able to switch utility companies when you disagreed with a rate increase? Not if what said source can charge is regulated, they can't. Healthcare doesn't equate to utilities in my mind. It's a different animal and I won't compare it in that way. The health of the citizens of any society determines the strength of that society in many ways. It behooves us to take that seriously.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 12:41:30 GMT -5
Other countries w/Universal Care have the same problem that Medicare has. Private payers subsidize them. Price controls increase the cost of drugs and technology for private payers. What happens to drug and technology development if the largest economy in the world also implements these price controls? our drug development is actually nothing to brag about. the system for development is cumbersome, slow, and inefficient. candidly, i think that Cuba has a much better model for drug development. their healthcare system in general is a disaster, btw, so i am not going to extend the compliment beyond this narrow area. my point is that we can look at systems that are considered national treasures and easily replace our national disaster with something better. but we have to WANT to do that. My question, though, is how long are you willing to rick having reduced quality of care for everyone while the "bugs" get worked out of a new/revised system? How many lives are worth your experiment? People are dying now, I understand that, but if more die while we're trying to "fix" things that could have been saved before trying the fix, how is that "caring" about and for people? You want to gamble with people's lives in order to create what you devise to be a better system. And in the end, if the system ends up a failure, I doubt you or anyone else advocating for the change would accept a shred of responsibility for it. It owuld end up being "someone else's" fault. The least risk of causing such a catastrophe is to work within the system we have now, making small changes piece by piece, adding efficiencies, getting people better educated and MORE RESPONSIBLE oever themselves and their choices, and working on ways to reduce costs - not just get everyone covered by tax-sibsidized insurance. I still don't understand how insurance reforms always seem to come down to insurance when COSTS are the real problems. Lower costs of care, and its far easier to lower insurance premiums.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 12:44:28 GMT -5
Because you just eliminated choice, which eliminates competition, which means the one source can now charge whatever they want and the "customers" have zero say in it. Think of utilities and other monopolies...when was the last time you were able to switch utility companies when you disagreed with a rate increase? Not if what said source can charge is regulated, they can't. Healthcare doesn't equate to utilities in my mind. It's a different animal and I won't compare it in that way. The health of the citizens of any society determines the strength of that society in many ways. It behooves us to take that seriously. ' And by regulating price, you have just reduced resources, meaning less access for all. Having access to insurance is meaningless if you're waiting 12 months to see a doctor...then you're right back to going to the ER for immediate care.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on May 14, 2012 12:48:33 GMT -5
Because you just eliminated choice, which eliminates competition, which means the one source can now charge whatever they want and the "customers" have zero say in it. Think of utilities and other monopolies...when was the last time you were able to switch utility companies when you disagreed with a rate increase? Not if what said source can charge is regulated, they can't. And if you regulate that charge too low do you end up with better/same/worse suppliers of the service? Do you end up with enough suppliers? That's the main basic problem I have with UHC. In theory, I really like the idea. In practice, in a country this large and diverse? I just don't see how it's functional. I hope someone can pull it off and make it work. It's be one less thing to worry about and was one of the main reasons I voted for BHO. I really thought he had the capital and the charisma to get it done.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 12:56:53 GMT -5
our drug development is actually nothing to brag about. the system for development is cumbersome, slow, and inefficient. candidly, i think that Cuba has a much better model for drug development. their healthcare system in general is a disaster, btw, so i am not going to extend the compliment beyond this narrow area. my point is that we can look at systems that are considered national treasures and easily replace our national disaster with something better. but we have to WANT to do that. My question, though, is how long are you willing to rick having reduced quality of care for everyone while the "bugs" get worked out of a new/revised system? How many lives are worth your experiment? right now, access is costing us over 100 lives a day. therefore, i am willing to risk up to 100 lives a day, which would equate to a net savings of lives.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 12:59:29 GMT -5
I've always heard (I'm no expert on insurance, certainly) that insurance becomes less expensive as the number of people you have enrolled with that particular insurance provider grows. Why, then, would it not be true that insurance would be less expensive for the individual if all people were enrolled with the same provider? Because you just eliminated choice, which eliminates competition, which means the one source can now charge whatever they want and the "customers" have zero say in it. you are exaggerating again. nobody is talking about eliminating choice. in fact, what MOST of us are talking about is INCREASING choice. and that shouldn't reduce competition, but increase it, as well.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 13:00:41 GMT -5
My question, though, is how long are you willing to rick having reduced quality of care for everyone while the "bugs" get worked out of a new/revised system? How many lives are worth your experiment? right now, access is costing us over 100 lives a day. therefore, i am willing to risk up to 100 lives a day, which would equate to a net savings of lives. And I don't quite see that as showing care. And, again, if some of those lives could have been saved in our old system, you would have just condemned them to that death.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 14, 2012 13:01:26 GMT -5
Not if what said source can charge is regulated, they can't. And if you regulate that charge too low do you end up with better/same/worse suppliers of the service? Do you end up with enough suppliers? That's the main basic problem I have with UHC. In theory, I really like the idea. In practice, in a country this large and diverse? I just don't see how it's functional. I hope someone can pull it off and make it work. It's be one less thing to worry about and was one of the main reasons I voted for BHO. I really thought he had the capital and the charisma to get it done. Of course it is important to consider what's workable when regulating anything. Has it always happened? No, it hasn't. Does that mean it can never happen? No, it doesn't. I believe, with the proper considerations and reflection, UHC can be made workable in this country. In fact, I believe this country to be capable of putting something together that is better than anything existing today. We've got plenty of examples to show us the ups and the downs. We've got ingenuity, and we've got need. What we need to do is get down to business and get the job done. If the politicians insist on getting in the way, they need to be moved ... by us.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 13:01:38 GMT -5
Because you just eliminated choice, which eliminates competition, which means the one source can now charge whatever they want and the "customers" have zero say in it. you are exaggerating again. nobody is talking about eliminating choice. in fact, what MOST of us are talking about is INCREASING choice. and that shouldn't reduce competition, but increase it, as well. Having a single insurance provider doesn't reduce choice? What math are you using?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 13:03:20 GMT -5
Not if what said source can charge is regulated, they can't. And if you regulate that charge too low do you end up with better/same/worse suppliers of the service? Do you end up with enough suppliers? That's the main basic problem I have with UHC. In theory, I really like the idea. In practice, in a country this large and diverse? I just don't see how it's functional. I hope someone can pull it off and make it work. It's be one less thing to worry about and was one of the main reasons I voted for BHO. I really thought he had the capital and the charisma to get it done. Europe is as large and arguably more diverse than the US. all but two countries there have UHC. Brazil is about 2/3 of our size. it has UHC. we spend a good deal of time bitching about how much better we are than the EU. are you really saying that we can't pull it off?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 13:05:19 GMT -5
you are exaggerating again. nobody is talking about eliminating choice. in fact, what MOST of us are talking about is INCREASING choice. and that shouldn't reduce competition, but increase it, as well. Having a single insurance provider doesn't reduce choice? What math are you using? what are you talking about? the best systems in the world are DUAL SYSTEMS. there is a private healthcare system, and a public one. why would the US opt for something OTHER than the best system?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 13:05:38 GMT -5
And if you regulate that charge too low do you end up with better/same/worse suppliers of the service? Do you end up with enough suppliers? That's the main basic problem I have with UHC. In theory, I really like the idea. In practice, in a country this large and diverse? I just don't see how it's functional. I hope someone can pull it off and make it work. It's be one less thing to worry about and was one of the main reasons I voted for BHO. I really thought he had the capital and the charisma to get it done. Europe is as large and arguably more diverse than the US. all but two countries there have UHC. Brazil is about 2/3 of our size. it has UHC. we spend a good deal of time bitching about how much better we are than the EU. are you really saying that we can't pull it off? If Europe had one large UHC covering every country, then that would be a comparable argument. As it is, each country in Europe has its own system that covers a mostly homogenous society within each country.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 14, 2012 13:06:49 GMT -5
Not if what said source can charge is regulated, they can't. Healthcare doesn't equate to utilities in my mind. It's a different animal and I won't compare it in that way. The health of the citizens of any society determines the strength of that society in many ways. It behooves us to take that seriously. ' And by regulating price, you have just reduced resources, meaning less access for all. Having access to insurance is meaningless if you're waiting 12 months to see a doctor...then you're right back to going to the ER for immediate care. LOL! No, you're not going right back to the ER because you're too spoiled to live with your recalcitrant gallbladder for a few weeks. That kind of thing needs to be stopped. ERs are for emergencies, not sniffly noses and hangnails. Where you come up with time frames of 12 months, I won't even ask. It's not worth my time to wade through your made-up answers. Regulating prices needn't reduce resources; nor, need it reduce access. If done properly, it can actually increase both. Some kinds of access, in fact, need to be reduced ... such as ER care for non-emergencies.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 13:08:40 GMT -5
And if you regulate that charge too low do you end up with better/same/worse suppliers of the service? Do you end up with enough suppliers? That's the main basic problem I have with UHC. In theory, I really like the idea. In practice, in a country this large and diverse? I just don't see how it's functional. I hope someone can pull it off and make it work. It's be one less thing to worry about and was one of the main reasons I voted for BHO. I really thought he had the capital and the charisma to get it done. Of course it is important to consider what's workable when regulating anything. Has it always happened? No, it hasn't. Does that mean it can never happen? No, it doesn't. I believe, with the proper considerations and reflection, UHC can be made workable in this country. In fact, I believe this country to be capable of putting something together that is better than anything existing today. We've got plenty of examples to show us the ups and the downs. We've got ingenuity, and we've got need. What we need to do is get down to business and get the job done. If the politicians insist on getting in the way, they need to be moved ... by us. it is not only possible, it exists. we just have to decide, AS A PEOPLE, how to manage it. clearly leaving it unmanaged is the worst possible idea. most thoughtful people think exactly the same way. so the ONLY question that remains is whether determination overcomes a combination of laziness, misinformation, and greed. the jury is out.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 13:09:13 GMT -5
Having a single insurance provider doesn't reduce choice? What math are you using? what are you talking about? the best systems in the world are DUAL SYSTEMS. there is a private healthcare system, and a public one. why would the US opt for something OTHER than the best system? If I don't like flying Delta Airlines, I buy a ticket from more expensive United. However, I don't then have to STILL pay for a Delta airlines ticket. A dual system is not best...having to pay for something I don't like while also paying for something I do like does not equate to a more efficient and cost-effective system to me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 13:09:38 GMT -5
Europe is as large and arguably more diverse than the US. all but two countries there have UHC. Brazil is about 2/3 of our size. it has UHC. we spend a good deal of time bitching about how much better we are than the EU. are you really saying that we can't pull it off? If Europe had one large UHC covering every country, then that would be a comparable argument. As it is, each country in Europe has its own system that covers a mostly homogenous society within each country. fine, use Brazil then.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 13:10:46 GMT -5
what are you talking about? the best systems in the world are DUAL SYSTEMS. there is a private healthcare system, and a public one. why would the US opt for something OTHER than the best system? If I don't like flying Delta Airlines, I buy a ticket from more expensive United. However, I don't then have to STILL pay for a Delta airlines ticket. A dual system is not best...having to pay for something I don't like while also paying for something I do like does not equate to a more efficient and cost-effective system to me. well, then i have to say, there is how it "seems to you", and how it IS. the dual systems are FAR CHEAPER** than our single private system. **NOTE: this is "per capita". it is probably the case that the private arm of various countries healthcare systems are similarly priced to our private healthcare, and the public arm is FAR cheaper- but i really don't know. haven't explored it.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 13:11:22 GMT -5
' And by regulating price, you have just reduced resources, meaning less access for all. Having access to insurance is meaningless if you're waiting 12 months to see a doctor...then you're right back to going to the ER for immediate care. LOL! No, you're not going right back to the ER because you're too spoiled to live with your recalcitrant gallbladder for a few weeks. That kind of thing needs to be stopped. ERs are for emergencies, not sniffly noses and hangnails. Where you come up with time frames of 12 months, I won't even ask. It's not worth my time to wade through your made-up answers. Regulating prices needn't reduce resources; nor, need it reduce access. If done properly, it can actually increase both. Some kinds of access, in fact, need to be reduced ... such as ER care for non-emergencies. So your fantasies are better than my made-up answers?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 13:14:25 GMT -5
If I don't like flying Delta Airlines, I buy a ticket from more expensive United. However, I don't then have to STILL pay for a Delta airlines ticket. A dual system is not best...having to pay for something I don't like while also paying for something I do like does not equate to a more efficient and cost-effective system to me. well, then i have to say, there is how it "seems to you", and how it IS. the dual systems are FAR CHEAPER than our single private system. Show me one that has over 300M citizens, with another 15-20M illegals, and a population with a strong desire for instant gratification and little to no personal responsibility over their health and show me how much cheaper it is...oh, that's right, there is no system like that to compare to.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 14, 2012 13:14:38 GMT -5
Yep. I'm part of the healthcare industry. I see it from a different angle than you do, and I see it more deeply. This most definitely CAN be done, and it can be done effectively. Of course, for those not willing to try, nothing can be done. I don't choose the defeatist stance. You can choose whatever you like and justify it however you like. I'll keep on doing things my way.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 14, 2012 13:17:50 GMT -5
Frankly, jkapp, I don't give a damn if the population has a strong desire for instant gratification. They'll just have to cope. I don't care if they don't wish to take personal responsibility for their health. They learn, or they don't. I'm not about to give in to that sort of garbage, throw up my hands and give up, any more than I did when my kids wanted the same things. You pat their behinds. I won't.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 13:26:27 GMT -5
Frankly, jkapp, I don't give a damn if the population has a strong desire for instant gratification. They'll just have to cope. I don't care if they don't wish to take personal responsibility for their health. They learn, or they don't. I'm not about to give in to that sort of garbage, throw up my hands and give up, any more than I did when my kids wanted the same things. You pat their behinds. I won't. So my not wanting UHC means I'm giving up now? So I have to agree to a UHC system in order to want change and reforms? Well if that ain't the typical "my-way-or-the-highway" leftist attitude if I ever did see it The argument in this post is about the US being "left behind" becasue it is not following a UHC system. I say "good riddance" to those countries taking a different road. Since when is following a crowd like a sheep showing ingenuity? Our country didn't become great because we did what everyone else was doing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 13:26:29 GMT -5
well, then i have to say, there is how it "seems to you", and how it IS. the dual systems are FAR CHEAPER than our single private system. Show me one that has over 300M citizens, with another 15-20M illegals, and a population with a strong desire for instant gratification and little to no personal responsibility over their health and show me how much cheaper it is...oh, that's right, there is no system like that to compare to. how about a country with 200M citizens and considerable illegal immigration?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 14, 2012 13:31:52 GMT -5
LOL! I'm not a "leftist", jkapp. Shows how much you think you know and don't. I simply don't fit well within the "Borg hive".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 13:36:05 GMT -5
Frankly, jkapp, I don't give a damn if the population has a strong desire for instant gratification. They'll just have to cope. I don't care if they don't wish to take personal responsibility for their health. They learn, or they don't. I'm not about to give in to that sort of garbage, throw up my hands and give up, any more than I did when my kids wanted the same things. You pat their behinds. I won't. So my not wanting UHC means I'm giving up now? So I have to agree to a UHC system in order to want change and reforms? Well if that ain't the typical "my-way-or-the-highway" leftist attitude if I ever did see it The argument in this post is about the US being "left behind" becasue it is not following a UHC system. I say "good riddance" to those countries taking a different road. Since when is following a crowd like a sheep showing ingenuity? Our country didn't become great because we did what everyone else was doing. it has nothing to do with ingenuity. it has to do with recognizing the COMMON SENSE reasons that various countries are considering. i have no problem with a country having an OPEN DEBATE about those reasons, and making a RATIONAL DECISION to not explore those alternatives. however, i have a very big problem with NOT EVEN EXPLORING THEM. that is not "ingenuity". that is some combination of ignorance and stubborn refusal to CONSIDER change. there is probably a clinical diagnosis for that condition. it is clearly not healthy.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 13:38:16 GMT -5
Show me one that has over 300M citizens, with another 15-20M illegals, and a population with a strong desire for instant gratification and little to no personal responsibility over their health and show me how much cheaper it is...oh, that's right, there is no system like that to compare to. how about a country with 200M citizens and considerable illegal immigration? Not really going for the Brazil argument, dj. They have only recently become an illegal immigrant magnet, where just a few years before they were an illegal immigrant exporter. America's social programs worked quite well when we were a rising nation as well. But, as anyone can see, those programs are now overburdening our system and creating generational welfare cases. If in another 20-30 years, Brazil is still prosperous and not being crushed by its social programs, then I'll owe you a Coke One thing I will say about some of their welfare programs, though, is ast least they put provisions in them to make the recipients learn about health, nutrition, and the like. But for whatever reason, those types of things are never put on our programs. I guess we like our poor to be ignorant and lazy - here's bunch of money for free food, go out and buy a dozen packages of cheese puffs and get nice and fat.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2012 13:46:45 GMT -5
how about a country with 200M citizens and considerable illegal immigration? Not really going for the Brazil argument, dj. of course not. because you seem to think that UHC doesn't scale. i think that is absurd. there is nothing that either of us will do to convince the other. good day.
|
|