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 13:48:36 GMT -5
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 i don't drink Coke. it i bad for your health. but i am starting to see your line of reasoning: social spending will eventually bankrupt a country. is that kind of the bottom line?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 13:50:48 GMT -5
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. I agree with common sense changes (I could say getting lawyers out of teh system may be common sense, but you will probably disagree), however, I don't agree that UHC is the common sense alternative, especially in a country with a population as selfish and irresponsible as this one. All UHC will do is once again push responsibility OFF of people, which is not a common sense approach IMO. As long as people think their healthcare is "free" (which they will because they're ignorant) then they will live as care free and irresponsible as they please. Amercians especially have a "we're the best, don't tell us how to live our lives" mentality, and no amount of doctors telling them to change their habits is going to fix that. But when they actually get hit in the pocketbook by their poor lifestyle choices, then they finally stand up and take notice. UHC doesn't do that for them. We need more talk/education on making better life choices in this country than we do regulations or reforms. Until we have those discussions, though, and get people to start being more responsible for themselves, making reforms or massive changes will do nothing positive. Its like taking a square peg from a square hole, then trying to force it into a circular hole without reshaping the peg. So you're either going to end up breaking the peg or ruining the hole.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 13:58:12 GMT -5
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 i don't drink Coke. it i bad for your health. but i am starting to see your line of reasoning: social spending will eventually bankrupt a country. is that kind of the bottom line? Not completely. Social programs, especially mass-effecting, involutary programs that involve large amounts of money are the beginnings of such road to bankruptcy. As Ben Franklin said: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. As long as UHC remains in the minds of the people as using "other people's money" it is destined to be a disaster in our country. Medicare wastes 60-70B every year because, IMO, the administration of the program doesn't care. Its playing with other people's money, so who cares if it gets wasted? They'll just get more...I mean, who doesn't want their "free" healthcare?
|
|
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 13:59:42 GMT -5
so, you are saying that UHC is a bad idea because we are fat, and because it will bankrupt us. right?
|
|
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 14:01:31 GMT -5
i don't drink Coke. it i bad for your health. but i am starting to see your line of reasoning: social spending will eventually bankrupt a country. is that kind of the bottom line? Not completely. Social programs, especially mass-effecting, involutary programs that involve large amounts of money are the beginnings of such road to bankruptcy. As Ben Franklin said: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. As long as UHC remains in the minds of the people as using "other people's money" it is destined to be a disaster in our country. Medicare wastes 60-70B every year because, IMO, the administration of the program doesn't care. Its playing with other people's money, so who cares if it gets wasted? They'll just get more...I mean, who doesn't want their "free" healthcare? the healthcare industry wastes far more than $70B a year on stuff that doesn't improve the health of anyone other than the industry.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 14:02:54 GMT -5
so, you are saying that UHC is a bad idea because we are fat, and because it will bankrupt us. right? Wrong again...because we are irresponsible and it will ultimately lead to an even greater debt problem than we already have. Already, our government spends $800B (almost as much as the defense budget with two wars going on) on healthcare each year, and that's only for a portion of the populace. Add everyone into it, and you may as well just file for bankruptcy at that point.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 14:03:49 GMT -5
Not completely. Social programs, especially mass-effecting, involutary programs that involve large amounts of money are the beginnings of such road to bankruptcy. As Ben Franklin said: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. As long as UHC remains in the minds of the people as using "other people's money" it is destined to be a disaster in our country. Medicare wastes 60-70B every year because, IMO, the administration of the program doesn't care. Its playing with other people's money, so who cares if it gets wasted? They'll just get more...I mean, who doesn't want their "free" healthcare? the healthcare industry wastes far more than $70B a year on stuff that doesn't improve the health of anyone other than the industry. And yet they aren't in massive debt in the trillions of dollars, either.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2012 15:02:33 GMT -5
Our country didn't become great because we did what everyone else was doing. ----------------- And it didn't become great because you were afraid to take risks and chances, instead of going "Waaaa! We can't do it because there will be bugs to work out."
|
|
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 15:22:49 GMT -5
so, you are saying that UHC is a bad idea because we are fat, and because it will bankrupt us. right? Wrong again... jk- i was ASKING you. questions aren't wrong. there are two answers: NO and YES. i will take this as a NO. thanks.
|
|
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 15:23:14 GMT -5
the healthcare industry wastes far more than $70B a year on stuff that doesn't improve the health of anyone other than the industry. And yet they aren't in massive debt in the trillions of dollars, either. sure they are, collectively.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on May 14, 2012 15:24:00 GMT -5
the healthcare industry wastes far more than $70B a year on stuff that doesn't improve the health of anyone other than the industry. And yet they aren't in massive debt in the trillions of dollars, either. Insurance companies aren't in massive debt in the trillions of dollars because they charge us, the user, enough to cover their expenses plus make themselves a sweet profit.
|
|
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 15:24:24 GMT -5
so, you are saying that UHC is a bad idea because we are fat, and because it will bankrupt us. right? Wrong again...because we are irresponsible and it will ultimately lead to an even greater debt problem than we already have. Already, our government spends $800B (almost as much as the defense budget with two wars going on) on healthcare each year, and that's only for a portion of the populace. Add everyone into it, and you may as well just file for bankruptcy at that point. there's that "can't do" attitude again. where did my country go?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on May 14, 2012 15:37:43 GMT -5
so, you are saying that UHC is a bad idea because we are fat, and because it will bankrupt us. right? Wrong again...because we are irresponsible and it will ultimately lead to an even greater debt problem than we already have. Already, our government spends $800B (almost as much as the defense budget with two wars going on) on healthcare each year, and that's only for a portion of the populace. Add everyone into it, and you may as well just file for bankruptcy at that point. Not if everyone pays into the pot. Now, if you're like most people, you and your employer pay the insurance premiums to get health care coverage for you and your family. What if, under UHC, your employer paid into a giant pot that provided coverage for everyone. Insurance costs for self employeed people would drop. Students or the working poor could get basic coverage on an adjustable scale based on their income. If people are destitute or elderly, the government pays their premiums. The giant pot could not refuse to cover anyone, and everyone who has income would be required to pay into it - no going uninsured and then getting hit by a bus and the State having to pay for your care. If we implimented this plan, then - guess what? No one waits until they're half dead to go to the emergency room because they have no insurance - they go to a doctor before the problem gets too out of hand. No more expensive uninsured emergency room visits driving up everyone else's health care costs. For some reason, conservatives don't want to be forced to purchase health care insurance. When we already require people to carry car insurance, what's the difference? And conservatives don't seem to get that when an uninsured person has to use the emergency room, that charge isn't magically made to go away, that charge gets passed on to all the customers who DO have insurance - like magic, we get increased healthcare costs for everyone.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2012 15:51:44 GMT -5
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. -------------------- Do what we do. Each province runs it's own healthcare. It's not all run by one centralized government. It's all under the same umbrella, but each province runs it differently.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on May 14, 2012 15:59:06 GMT -5
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. -------------------- Do what we do. Each province runs it's own healthcare. It's not all run by one centralized government. It's all under the same umbrella, but each province runs it differently. Ha! States rights is so 1860.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2012 16:04:26 GMT -5
The smaller states could group together as work as one entity. Where's your vision?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 16:08:05 GMT -5
Wrong again...because we are irresponsible and it will ultimately lead to an even greater debt problem than we already have. Already, our government spends $800B (almost as much as the defense budget with two wars going on) on healthcare each year, and that's only for a portion of the populace. Add everyone into it, and you may as well just file for bankruptcy at that point. Not if everyone pays into the pot. Now, if you're like most people, you and your employer pay the insurance premiums to get health care coverage for you and your family. What if, under UHC, your employer paid into a giant pot that provided coverage for everyone. Insurance costs for self employeed people would drop. Students or the working poor could get basic coverage on an adjustable scale based on their income. If people are destitute or elderly, the government pays their premiums. The giant pot could not refuse to cover anyone, and everyone who has income would be required to pay into it - no going uninsured and then getting hit by a bus and the State having to pay for your care. If we implimented this plan, then - guess what? No one waits until they're half dead to go to the emergency room because they have no insurance - they go to a doctor before the problem gets too out of hand. No more expensive uninsured emergency room visits driving up everyone else's health care costs. For some reason, conservatives don't want to be forced to purchase health care insurance. When we already require people to carry car insurance, what's the difference? And conservatives don't seem to get that when an uninsured person has to use the emergency room, that charge isn't magically made to go away, that charge gets passed on to all the customers who DO have insurance - like magic, we get increased healthcare costs for everyone. And yet I still don't see how this lowers costs. Doctors are still performing excess tests because lawyers are still breathing down their necks. Doctors' insurance rates are still skyrocketing because they will continue to get sued. And, again, ERs won't be used if people are actually able to get in to see their doctor in a timely manner. If they have to wait excessive amounts of time (something prone to UHC countries) then they damn sure will go to the ER. Like I stated before, patience is not a virtue to the average American. Plus, if doctors and hospitals can't function on the amounts pre-determined by the UHC, then how do they stay in business? Will we then have doctor/hospital bailouts to contend with? Those types of cost aren't figured into any UHC projections. And UHC will start out pretty crappy, what with the rest of us having to subsidize the millions of unemployed health insurance workers that will have their employment terminated....of course, I know you don't give two shits about them. And, please, stop with the tired apples to oranges Auto vs. Health insurance argument. Guess what? There are people who don't own car insurance...not every state requires it and if they don't own a car, they don't pay insurance. The insurance is tied to the CHOICE of owning a car...what choice is involved in health insurance? So if people are forced to buy health insurance just for living, what else will they be forced to pay for down the road just for living? I'm all for healthcare reform...but I have yet to hear ANYTHING on this post, or even in other UHC discussions, about reforming anything involving health CARE. All I keep hearing about is health INSURANCE. It's like having a busted water pipe in the kitchen, and you guys are trying to fix it by merely mopping up the water that's spilled on the floor...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 16:09:12 GMT -5
Our country didn't become great because we did what everyone else was doing. ----------------- And it didn't become great because you were afraid to take risks and chances, instead of going "Waaaa! We can't do it because there will be bugs to work out." And we didn't get great by having government take all responsibility off of the populace, either. Which is all UHC does.
|
|
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 16:10:19 GMT -5
I'm all for healthcare reform...but I have yet to hear ANYTHING on this post, or even in other UHC discussions, about reforming anything involving health CARE. All I keep hearing about is health INSURANCE. It's like having a busted water pipe in the kitchen, and you guys are trying to fix it by merely mopping up the water that's spilled on the floor... don't get upset, dude. it is just the vernacular. for the record? i hate it too. but i gave up long ago. people know what you mean when you say HC reform, and their eyes glaze over when you say Insurance Reform.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 16:10:37 GMT -5
Wrong again...because we are irresponsible and it will ultimately lead to an even greater debt problem than we already have. Already, our government spends $800B (almost as much as the defense budget with two wars going on) on healthcare each year, and that's only for a portion of the populace. Add everyone into it, and you may as well just file for bankruptcy at that point. there's that "can't do" attitude again. where did my country go? Apparently it was replaced by "government can-do while we just play on our iphones"
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2012 16:13:10 GMT -5
Hmmmph! Typical Liberal response! "Just cooperate and work together!" Well clearly, that won't do at all! The very nerve!
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2012 16:15:44 GMT -5
And, again, ERs won't be used if people are actually able to get in to see their doctor in a timely manner. If they have to wait excessive amounts of time (something prone to UHC countries) then they damn sure will go to the ER. Like I stated before, patience is not a virtue to the average American. -------------- That's why we have clinics and CLSCs (community health centers) in every neighbourhood. You could see a doctor the same day, as opposed to an expensive ER visit.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 14, 2012 16:31:15 GMT -5
And, again, ERs won't be used if people are actually able to get in to see their doctor in a timely manner. If they have to wait excessive amounts of time (something prone to UHC countries) then they damn sure will go to the ER. Like I stated before, patience is not a virtue to the average American. -------------- That's why we have clinics and CLSCs (community health centers) in every neighbourhood. You could see a doctor the same day, as opposed to an expensive ER visit. The same day, and it will take most of it, as well. We had something similar to those in the last city I lived in, and it was a "take a number, and wait your turn" (and hope there aren't 50 people ahead of you). They work great if you have the whole day to wait, and get rather generic health treatment/advice. I had to go to one of these once. I went in with severe heartburn issues that were causing me to lose sleep...the doctor gave me a prescription for some sleeping pills. Not exactly the problem I was most concerned about. I then saw my GP and he diagnosed me with GERD. So, basically, the time in the walk-in clinic was completely wasted...
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 14, 2012 17:57:23 GMT -5
UHC is one of those things that sounds great in theory, but in practice it will destroy us. It would bankrupt this country and cause the quality of care to drop. Public schools are a good example, everyone hates how it's run and how bad many of them are, yet we want to turn our healthcare over to the government.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2012 18:13:17 GMT -5
And, again, ERs won't be used if people are actually able to get in to see their doctor in a timely manner. If they have to wait excessive amounts of time (something prone to UHC countries) then they damn sure will go to the ER. Like I stated before, patience is not a virtue to the average American. -------------- That's why we have clinics and CLSCs (community health centers) in every neighbourhood. You could see a doctor the same day, as opposed to an expensive ER visit. The same day, and it will take most of it, as well. We had something similar to those in the last city I lived in, and it was a "take a number, and wait your turn" (and hope there aren't 50 people ahead of you). They work great if you have the whole day to wait, and get rather generic health treatment/advice. I had to go to one of these once. I went in with severe heartburn issues that were causing me to lose sleep...the doctor gave me a prescription for some sleeping pills. Not exactly the problem I was most concerned about. I then saw my GP and he diagnosed me with GERD. So, basically, the time in the walk-in clinic was completely wasted... So you think you'll be seen immediately in the ER? With heartburn?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 14, 2012 18:34:48 GMT -5
"It will surprise many Canadians to know that the U.S. military have plans for the invasion of Canada on the shelf." Doesn't surprise me, the U.S probably has plans on the shelf to invade every country on earth. Wouldn't surprise me if they have a plan to attack Antartica . "it is not just Canada. we are the most feared nation on Earth. and for good reason. we have shown OVER AND OVER again how quickly we can turn on a nation. ie- we were selling dual use weapons to Saddam and less than two years later, bombing the shit out of him." Well, some country on this earth has to have the most military might. Personally I'd rather it be my country than another country.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 14, 2012 18:37:10 GMT -5
According to a 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office, emergency department wait times continue to increase. The report says the average wait time to see a physician is more than double the recommended time in some cases. Research from Press Ganey Associates, a group that works with health care organizations to improve clinical outcomes, finds that in 2009, patients admitted to hospitals waited on average six hours in emergency rooms. Nearly 400,000 patients waited 24 hours or more. "It's not unheard of to wait that long in the best hospitals, and even in the best emergency departments," says Dr. Assaad Sayah, chief of emergency medicine for the Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts. "Overcrowding is not just an emergency department problem, but a hospital inpatient problem." Dr. Sandra Schneider, president of American College of Emergency Physicians, says the backups occur as emergency departments struggle to find beds for admitted patients. www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/13/emergency.room.ep/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/13/emergency.room.ep/index.htmlLooks like you have some pretty long wait times in the US hospital ERs as well. You won't be seen right away for heartburn. Might as well go to the clinic, and get a GI consult.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 22:47:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2012 18:45:54 GMT -5
"if it is not insurance, what is it?"
Oh, I'm glad I asked what you meant, because what I was guessing wasn't even close.... With respect to pre-existing conditions, that problem would not exist if we actually had health insurance. If I'm diagnosed with cancer today, whatever insurance company is covering me now should be responsible for the associated expenses (probably up to some limit), even if I have to change providers. At least that's how it would behave if it were really insurance. And then a new insurance plan would cover everything except any pre-existing conditions.
|
|
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 18:50:27 GMT -5
"if it is not insurance, what is it?" Oh, I'm glad I asked what you meant, because what I was guessing wasn't even close.... With respect to pre-existing conditions, that problem would not exist if we actually had health insurance. If I'm diagnosed with cancer today, whatever insurance company is covering me now should be responsible for the associated expenses (probably up to some limit), even if I have to change providers. At least that's how it would behave if it were really insurance. And then a new insurance plan would cover everything except any pre-existing conditions. that only makes sense if you can determine precisely what time and date someone contracted an illness. but you didn't answer the question: what is it?
|
|
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 18:51:52 GMT -5
"It will surprise many Canadians to know that the U.S. military have plans for the invasion of Canada on the shelf." Doesn't surprise me, the U.S probably has plans on the shelf to invade every country on earth. Wouldn't surprise me if they have a plan to attack Antartica . "it is not just Canada. we are the most feared nation on Earth. and for good reason. we have shown OVER AND OVER again how quickly we can turn on a nation. ie- we were selling dual use weapons to Saddam and less than two years later, bombing the shit out of him." Well, some country on this earth has to have the most military might. Personally I'd rather it be my country than another country. i would agree if we didn't recklessly abuse that power. but i don't, because we do. if i didn't love this country so much, i would leave it. it's foreign policy is utterly hideous.
|
|