hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 21, 2020 16:00:27 GMT -5
Everyone needs healthcare, and the federal government has proven wholly incapable of administering healthcare. They already spend what many countries spend per capita, countries who provide healthcare to EVERYONE. completely false.
again: the VA is lower cost and has more satisfaction than private care in the US.
if you are going to keep repeating that trope over and over again, we might as well end this discussion.
You don't seem to understand that government healthcare is broader than the VA. Your argument is that someone who installs toilets really well should be trusted to build a house, even though every house they've ever built has been condemned. But their toilet installation is amazing. Installing a toilet is one small part of building a house, it is not building a house. I'd be interested to see your source for the VA providing more satisfaction though. Hopefully it's not the VA reporting that the VA is doing great.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,392
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 21, 2020 16:00:36 GMT -5
Just like I am paying for schools to educate US kids, weapons the military doesn't need since we can already kill off everyone on the planet without spending one additional dollar on weapons, or farm subsidies that were not needed prior the "wonderful tariffs China is paying for", and roads that are badly maintained. When I add up state, federal, and sales tax it is not we really pay that much less in taxes. We just get an awful lot less for the money we pay into taxes.
Also, people do get sick and they will die. If you want to know why I added that last statement look up the expenditure distribution of the cost of healthcare for the average person. Most of us will not get out of here cheaply.
Along the same lines, go look at what the US Government already spends in healthcare annually. They essentially already spend per capita what other countries spend per capita that provide robust government-provided healthcare. The answer to why we can't copy the Dutch Healthcare system is "the government is completely and utterly inefficient". The great news is that it's not really an issue of "we need higher taxes to do this"...because putting more money into a horribly inefficient system does not magically create efficiency. But again, many people don't really care THAT much about the inefficiency, because the vast majority of people aren't subsidizing someone else, they're getting far more than they pay in. And people tend to care a lot less about inefficiency with someone else's money than they do their own. But people SHOULD be bothered by that inefficiency, because everyone could be getting so much MORE if the government were efficient. Is it because the government is inefficient or because lobbyists have bought politicians that make sure profits won't get harmed and rich people will continue to benefit? Or maybe a combination?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 21, 2020 16:02:46 GMT -5
Along the same lines, go look at what the US Government already spends in healthcare annually. They essentially already spend per capita what other countries spend per capita that provide robust government-provided healthcare. The answer to why we can't copy the Dutch Healthcare system is "the government is completely and utterly inefficient". The great news is that it's not really an issue of "we need higher taxes to do this"...because putting more money into a horribly inefficient system does not magically create efficiency. But again, many people don't really care THAT much about the inefficiency, because the vast majority of people aren't subsidizing someone else, they're getting far more than they pay in. And people tend to care a lot less about inefficiency with someone else's money than they do their own. But people SHOULD be bothered by that inefficiency, because everyone could be getting so much MORE if the government were efficient. Is it because the government is inefficient or because lobbyists have bought politicians that make sure profits won't get harmed and rich people will continue to benefit? Or maybe a combination? It's the government. Politicians are part of the government...you could probably say they are the most critical part of the government in terms of it being inefficient. I'm not sure you can separate "is it the politicians or is it the government?". That's like saying "Is it me, or is it my brain?". Same thing.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 21, 2020 16:09:21 GMT -5
So many on the right don't want to part with a nickel if it helps somebody else. What's up with that? If I'm going to put money into helping somebody else, I'd rather put it into a system which efficiently helps other people. Our federal and state governments are horrible at it. If you want to contribute $1,000 you'd be better off getting 1,000 one-dollar bills and lighting them on fire in front of a homeless person, at least they'd get some heat from it. The government is just going to give half of it to bureaucracy and go light the other half on fire in some secured warehouse where nobody will even get the benefit of the heat. I'm sorry your government sucks.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 21, 2020 16:13:37 GMT -5
If I'm going to put money into helping somebody else, I'd rather put it into a system which efficiently helps other people. Our federal and state governments are horrible at it. If you want to contribute $1,000 you'd be better off getting 1,000 one-dollar bills and lighting them on fire in front of a homeless person, at least they'd get some heat from it. The government is just going to give half of it to bureaucracy and go light the other half on fire in some secured warehouse where nobody will even get the benefit of the heat. I'm sorry your government sucks. Could always be worse I suppose. They're horribly inefficient at administering social services. But then again when you're the most powerful country in the world, I suppose they're doing something right. It's just certainly not helping those in need efficiently.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 21, 2020 16:15:13 GMT -5
I'm sorry your government sucks. Could always be worse I suppose. They're horribly inefficient at administering social services. But then again when you're the most powerful country in the world, I suppose they're doing something right. It's just certainly not helping those in need efficiently. You may be the most powerful in terms of a massive military arsenal, but that's about it.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 21, 2020 16:22:13 GMT -5
Could always be worse I suppose. They're horribly inefficient at administering social services. But then again when you're the most powerful country in the world, I suppose they're doing something right. It's just certainly not helping those in need efficiently. You may be the most powerful in terms of a massive military arsenal, but that's about it. Military and GDP seem like 2 pretty significant measures of power.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 21, 2020 16:28:04 GMT -5
You may be the most powerful in terms of a massive military arsenal, but that's about it. Military and GDP seem like 2 pretty significant measures of power. It certainly doesn't address the quality of life.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 21, 2020 16:34:52 GMT -5
I'm sorry your government sucks. Could always be worse I suppose. They're horribly inefficient at administering social services. But then again when you're the most powerful country in the world, I suppose they're doing something right. It's just certainly not helping those in need efficiently. Haven't I heard numerous times that Medicare overhead is 3% whereas the private sector healthcare clocks in at 15%?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 21, 2020 16:53:29 GMT -5
Could always be worse I suppose. They're horribly inefficient at administering social services. But then again when you're the most powerful country in the world, I suppose they're doing something right. It's just certainly not helping those in need efficiently. Haven't I heard numerous times that Medicare overhead is 3% whereas the private sector healthcare clocks in at 15%? Probably, but if you understand how Medicare works (you'll probably understand this more if you've been through the system or helped someone through the system), you'll understand that what WOULD be overhead for Medicare is instead "farmed out" to the Social Security Administration without compensation. They're essentially getting a lot of free labor from another government agency and then reporting low expenses. Private companies also do a lot of things Medicare doesn't, like creating networks of providers. And then a TON of the overhead is marketing and advertising, which doesn't really speak to efficiency of running the healthcare. Medicare operates on the back of the private system right now. I'm also not one who thinks the private system is terribly efficient either. So I'm not pushing to privatize Medicare or other current government programs. I think if you want to take either private or public and make it "the one" system, then that system has to prove it is so much more efficient that it makes sense. The problem is right now that BOTH system spend the amount of money that other countries use to cover "everyone" (not everyone, but large amounts of government-funded healthcare)...so it's a hard argument to make that EITHER should be given more money when theoretically if EITHER were all that efficient then they already have the money they need.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,880
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 21, 2020 16:58:32 GMT -5
it might also be a good moment to note that Holland is one of the four best countries on Earth for upward mobility. in other words, a person born into poverty has a better chance of reaching middle class in Holland than all but a few nations on Earth. in case you are wondering, the US ranks near the bottom in this category. I think these things are related (heath security and income mobility). think about it. Holland is NOT a country, it is a province (actually two since there is a North and a South one) in the Netherlands. Take it from a very proud Dutch Limburg native
And yes, we do have a good social system. It has a lot in common with many other northern European countries that take a similar approach.
As an aside, and as someone who used to live in Luxembourg, I'm currently reading a book called Lotharingia, by Simon Winder, which is a history of the area between France and Germany from the Roman times until WWII - and it's very funny, as well as very interesting. I didn't know the role of St Eustatius in the American revolutionary war, for instance, for instance, or that the Dutch fleet once invaded the Thames to mock the British. Next are his books Germania and Danubia....
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,880
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 21, 2020 17:02:36 GMT -5
Just like I am paying for schools to educate US kids, weapons the military doesn't need since we can already kill off everyone on the planet without spending one additional dollar on weapons, or farm subsidies that were not needed prior the "wonderful tariffs China is paying for", and roads that are badly maintained. When I add up state, federal, and sales tax it is not we really pay that much less in taxes. We just get an awful lot less for the money we pay into taxes.
Also, people do get sick and they will die. If you want to know why I added that last statement look up the expenditure distribution of the cost of healthcare for the average person. Most of us will not get out of here cheaply.
Along the same lines, go look at what the US Government already spends in healthcare annually. They essentially already spend per capita what other countries spend per capita that provide robust government-provided healthcare. The answer to why we can't copy the Dutch Healthcare system is "the government is completely and utterly inefficient". The great news is that it's not really an issue of "we need higher taxes to do this"...because putting more money into a horribly inefficient system does not magically create efficiency. But again, many people don't really care THAT much about the inefficiency, because the vast majority of people aren't subsidizing someone else, they're getting far more than they pay in. And people tend to care a lot less about inefficiency with someone else's money than they do their own. But people SHOULD be bothered by that inefficiency, because everyone could be getting so much MORE if the government were efficient. Because they have their hands tied. Every other first world country puts some kind of controls on what big Pharma can charge users. Not us! We let Big Pharma gouge away, because Big Pharma has a giant lobby and buys over politicians so they don't mess with their golden goose. Same thing with Big Insurance. Those two industries have an enormous incentive to keep the US paying the most money for some of the worst healthcare in the world.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 21, 2020 17:12:28 GMT -5
Along the same lines, go look at what the US Government already spends in healthcare annually. They essentially already spend per capita what other countries spend per capita that provide robust government-provided healthcare. The answer to why we can't copy the Dutch Healthcare system is "the government is completely and utterly inefficient". The great news is that it's not really an issue of "we need higher taxes to do this"...because putting more money into a horribly inefficient system does not magically create efficiency. But again, many people don't really care THAT much about the inefficiency, because the vast majority of people aren't subsidizing someone else, they're getting far more than they pay in. And people tend to care a lot less about inefficiency with someone else's money than they do their own. But people SHOULD be bothered by that inefficiency, because everyone could be getting so much MORE if the government were efficient. Because they have their hands tied. Every other first world country puts some kind of controls on what big Pharma can charge users. Not us! We let Big Pharma gouge away, because Big Pharma has a giant lobby and buys over politicians so they don't mess with their golden goose. Same thing with Big Insurance. Those two industries have an enormous incentive to keep the US paying the most money for some of the worst healthcare in the world. But when you say "they have their hands tied"...they are the ones tying their own hands in that respect. That's also another aspect that impacts other countries, and their ability to offer inexpensive healthcare. The US has by FAR the most innovative medical system. They publish more, they create more, they effectively subsidize the world in that respect. And it definitely benefits Pharma, but if that profit incentive disappears, what happens? Right now companies can put money into R& and innovation because they can capitalize on it here, and the rest of the world's governments can limit the profit without it mattering. Does overall quality of medicine decline or stagnate when companies can no longer make the profits they do today on the backs of the American people?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,880
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 21, 2020 17:15:47 GMT -5
You may be the most powerful in terms of a massive military arsenal, but that's about it. Military and GDP seem like 2 pretty significant measures of power. Isn't it amazing how the country with the biggest GDP also has the third lowest rating (right down there with Nigeria) when it comes to countries where a poor person can work there way up the middle class. Or how we pay more than any other country for medical care, and yet have such shitty health care. Or how we have one of the largest gaps of any country in the world. The Netherlands is one of the few countries that still have a healthcare system relying on private insurance - they've made it work with tight controls on how much insurance companies and big Pharma can charge. We'd be smart to copy their system, rather than throwing up our hands and claiming it's unfixable because it's caused by a bad bureaucracy.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,392
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 21, 2020 17:25:10 GMT -5
Could always be worse I suppose. They're horribly inefficient at administering social services. But then again when you're the most powerful country in the world, I suppose they're doing something right. It's just certainly not helping those in need efficiently. You may be the most powerful in terms of a massive military arsenal, but that's about it. A lot of our power comes from luck, size and distance. If Monroe hadn't locked down huge portions of the continent, we would be a bunch of countries - like Europe.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,392
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 21, 2020 17:31:27 GMT -5
Is it because the government is inefficient or because lobbyists have bought politicians that make sure profits won't get harmed and rich people will continue to benefit? Or maybe a combination? It's the government. Politicians are part of the government...you could probably say they are the most critical part of the government in terms of it being inefficient. I'm not sure you can separate "is it the politicians or is it the government?". That's like saying "Is it me, or is it my brain?". Same thing. Yes, but is the government inefficient because of laws, or just inept organizations?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 21, 2020 17:31:37 GMT -5
U.S. health system costs four times more to run than Canada’s single-payer system In the United States, a legion of administrative healthcare workers and health insurance employees who play no direct role in providing patient care costs every American man, woman and child an average of $2,497 per year. Across the border in Canada, where a single-payer system has been in place since 1962, the cost of administering healthcare is just $551 per person — less than a quarter as much. www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-01-07/u-s-health-system-costs-four-times-more-than-canadas-single-payer-systemAnd yet, health outcomes are about the same, not to mention that Canadians live longer.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 21, 2020 17:37:43 GMT -5
Because they have their hands tied. Every other first world country puts some kind of controls on what big Pharma can charge users. Not us! We let Big Pharma gouge away, because Big Pharma has a giant lobby and buys over politicians so they don't mess with their golden goose. Same thing with Big Insurance. Those two industries have an enormous incentive to keep the US paying the most money for some of the worst healthcare in the world. But when you say "they have their hands tied"...they are the ones tying their own hands in that respect. That's also another aspect that impacts other countries, and their ability to offer inexpensive healthcare. The US has by FAR the most innovative medical system. They publish more, they create more, they effectively subsidize the world in that respect. And it definitely benefits Pharma, but if that profit incentive disappears, what happens? Right now companies can put money into R& and innovation because they can capitalize on it here, and the rest of the world's governments can limit the profit without it mattering. Does overall quality of medicine decline or stagnate when companies can no longer make the profits they do today on the backs of the American people? US pharmaceutical companies spend more on ADVERTISING than they do on Research and Development. Those incessant commercials don't pay for themselves. Plus, they have to grease the palms of politicians through lobbying. Other countries don't allow prescription medication ads on TV.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 21, 2020 18:24:33 GMT -5
completely false.
again: the VA is lower cost and has more satisfaction than private care in the US.
if you are going to keep repeating that trope over and over again, we might as well end this discussion.
You don't seem to understand that government healthcare is broader than the VA. you don't seem to understand that the VA is "government healthcare".
hoops- you made a blanket statement about "government healthcare". that statement was false.
own it, or change it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 21, 2020 18:26:29 GMT -5
I'm sorry your government sucks. Could always be worse I suppose. They're horribly inefficient at administering social services. again, this is completely untrue. the cost of administration of healthcare in the private sector is 2-3x higher than in the public sector.
please stop repeating this lie.
tyia.
edit: it should be noted that "ObamaCare" is not "government healthcare". it is barely even "government insurance". so if that is the example of "inefficient healthcare", it really doesn't work.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 21, 2020 18:28:07 GMT -5
Along the same lines, go look at what the US Government already spends in healthcare annually. They essentially already spend per capita what other countries spend per capita that provide robust government-provided healthcare. The answer to why we can't copy the Dutch Healthcare system is "the government is completely and utterly inefficient". The great news is that it's not really an issue of "we need higher taxes to do this"...because putting more money into a horribly inefficient system does not magically create efficiency. But again, many people don't really care THAT much about the inefficiency, because the vast majority of people aren't subsidizing someone else, they're getting far more than they pay in. And people tend to care a lot less about inefficiency with someone else's money than they do their own. But people SHOULD be bothered by that inefficiency, because everyone could be getting so much MORE if the government were efficient. Because they have their hands tied. . nah. it is because it is completely fucking untrue.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 21, 2020 19:36:01 GMT -5
Military and GDP seem like 2 pretty significant measures of power. Isn't it amazing how the country with the biggest GDP also has the third lowest rating (right down there with Nigeria) when it comes to countries where a poor person can work there way up the middle class. Or how we pay more than any other country for medical care, and yet have such shitty health care. Or how we have one of the largest gaps of any country in the world. The Netherlands is one of the few countries that still have a healthcare system relying on private insurance - they've made it work with tight controls on how much insurance companies and big Pharma can charge. We'd be smart to copy their system, rather than throwing up our hands and claiming it's unfixable because it's caused by a bad bureaucracy. What no one has mentioned in discussing the successful medical coverage of the Netherlands is the fact that all people in the Netherlands HAS to take out health insurance..no exceptions...Even those who might have problems affording the premiums, the government will step in with help... Something that so many folks were against under Obama care...I believe the GOP as a political party was against that forced coverage... The feeling was younger folks who have less need for health care would offset the older folks who do use health care a lot...Younger folks objected...even for many preferred not to have insurance at all...In my mind foolish as I saw young folks in for strokes at rehab when I was hit with that plus so many in car and cycle accidents...injuries in sports plus just coming down with illnesses...but still, not wanting to have coverage...they felt not needed.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 21, 2020 20:44:53 GMT -5
Isn't it amazing how the country with the biggest GDP also has the third lowest rating (right down there with Nigeria) when it comes to countries where a poor person can work there way up the middle class. Or how we pay more than any other country for medical care, and yet have such shitty health care. Or how we have one of the largest gaps of any country in the world. The Netherlands is one of the few countries that still have a healthcare system relying on private insurance - they've made it work with tight controls on how much insurance companies and big Pharma can charge. We'd be smart to copy their system, rather than throwing up our hands and claiming it's unfixable because it's caused by a bad bureaucracy. What no one has mentioned in discussing the successful medical coverage of the Netherlands is the fact that all people in the Netherlands HAS to take out health insurance..no exceptions...Even those who might have problems affording the premiums, the government will step in with help... Something that so many folks were against under Obama care...I believe the GOP as a political party was against that forced coverage... The feeling was younger folks who have less need for health care would offset the older folks who do use health care a lot...Younger folks objected...even for many preferred not to have insurance at all...In my mind foolish as I saw young folks in for strokes at rehab when I was hit with that plus so many in car and cycle accidents...injuries in sports plus just coming down with illnesses...but still, not wanting to have coverage...they felt not needed. When you take the right to decide from themselves you take away a part of their independence
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 21, 2020 21:18:13 GMT -5
What no one has mentioned in discussing the successful medical coverage of the Netherlands is the fact that all people in the Netherlands HAS to take out health insurance..no exceptions...Even those who might have problems affording the premiums, the government will step in with help... Something that so many folks were against under Obama care...I believe the GOP as a political party was against that forced coverage... The feeling was younger folks who have less need for health care would offset the older folks who do use health care a lot...Younger folks objected...even for many preferred not to have insurance at all...In my mind foolish as I saw young folks in for strokes at rehab when I was hit with that plus so many in car and cycle accidents...injuries in sports plus just coming down with illnesses...but still, not wanting to have coverage...they felt not needed. When you take the right to decide from themselves you take away a part of their independence The independence that causes so many deaths here in America. Probably zero deaths in the Netherlands from folks not having healthcare insurance. How civilized.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 21, 2020 21:29:50 GMT -5
When you take the right to decide from themselves you take away a part of their independence The independence that causes so many deaths here in America. Probably zero deaths in the Netherlands from folks not having healthcare insurance. How civilized. this is the same freedom that every dictator offers his scapegoats.
the freedom to die.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 21, 2020 21:32:57 GMT -5
Military and GDP seem like 2 pretty significant measures of power. Isn't it amazing how the country with the biggest GDP also has the third lowest rating (right down there with Nigeria) when it comes to countries where a poor person can work there way up the middle class. Or how we pay more than any other country for medical care, and yet have such shitty health care. Or how we have one of the largest gaps of any country in the world. The Netherlands is one of the few countries that still have a healthcare system relying on private insurance - they've made it work with tight controls on how much insurance companies and big Pharma can charge. We'd be smart to copy their system, rather than throwing up our hands and claiming it's unfixable because it's caused by a bad bureaucracy. all of the best healthcare systems are public/private. basic services are all public. the specialty care is almost all private.
in Spain, to use an example familiar to me, almost all healthcare is done through public hospitals. having private insurance DOUBLES the cost of healthcare for most Spaniards, so they rely exclusively on the public system.
the rich, of course, don't care about the cost. so they have insurance for their chin lifts and corneal implants.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 8:35:28 GMT -5
You don't seem to understand that government healthcare is broader than the VA. you don't seem to understand that the VA is "government healthcare".
hoops- you made a blanket statement about "government healthcare". that statement was false.
own it, or change it.
If you build 1 good house and 99 bad ones, you are inept at building houses. You're trying to argue that if someone builds 1 good house that takes them 50 years to complete, and 99 houses that are horrific, that you can't say they're bad at building houses. Your argument is laughable. I'm still waiting for your data to back up your claims on the VA in terms of approval level though.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,392
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 22, 2020 8:40:12 GMT -5
you don't seem to understand that the VA is "government healthcare".
hoops- you made a blanket statement about "government healthcare". that statement was false.
own it, or change it.
If you build 1 good house and 99 bad ones, you are inept at building houses. You're trying to argue that if someone builds 1 good house that takes them 50 years to complete, and 99 houses that are horrific, that you can't say they're bad at building houses. Your argument is laughable. I'm still waiting for your data to back up your claims on the VA in terms of approval level though. There are like 80 developed countries and everyone, except the US, has good houses. Ours house, however, has a couple of super nice rooms, and the rest are shit hole, horror movie, death traps. The roof leaks and the foundation is crumblinh. Our house also cost more than twice what everyone else's cost. You are sitting in the nicest room, but that doesn't mean it is the best house.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jan 22, 2020 8:47:37 GMT -5
If you build 1 good house and 99 bad ones, you are inept at building houses. You're trying to argue that if someone builds 1 good house that takes them 50 years to complete, and 99 houses that are horrific, that you can't say they're bad at building houses. Your argument is laughable. I'm still waiting for your data to back up your claims on the VA in terms of approval level though. There are like 80 developed countries and everyone, except the US, has good houses. Ours house, however, has a couple of super nice rooms, and the rest are shit hole, horror movie, death traps. The roof leaks and the foundation is crumblinh. Our house also cost more than twice what everyone else's cost. You are sitting in the nicest room, but that doesn't mean it is the best house. Yes, and DJ is attempting to argue that we should put a bunch of money into making rooms nice while the house has a crumbling foundation and leaky roof, because someone installed a toilet really nicely in a random bathroom. I'm arguing that before we put another penny into making rooms fancy, we should probably address the foundation. I'm not against a single payer system, the beauty is that the government ALREADY spends in healthcare what other countries spend to provide it. People want the government to build a $200k house, the government already has $200k to spend building houses. I'm pointing out that if they can't build a $200k house for $200k, the correct answer is NOT giving them $500k to build a house worth $200k. It's figuring out why the hell they aren't capable of building the house with the money they already have, and then fixing that situation so that they can take the $200k they already have in their possession and build the house.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 22, 2020 9:34:41 GMT -5
What no one has mentioned in discussing the successful medical coverage of the Netherlands is the fact that all people in the Netherlands HAS to take out health insurance..no exceptions...Even those who might have problems affording the premiums, the government will step in with help... Something that so many folks were against under Obama care...I believe the GOP as a political party was against that forced coverage... The feeling was younger folks who have less need for health care would offset the older folks who do use health care a lot...Younger folks objected...even for many preferred not to have insurance at all...In my mind foolish as I saw young folks in for strokes at rehab when I was hit with that plus so many in car and cycle accidents...injuries in sports plus just coming down with illnesses...but still, not wanting to have coverage...they felt not needed. When you take the right to decide from themselves you take away a part of their independence Sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the overall good...if not going to make them to correct a problem, and one of the major things that has to be done if we want to fix our health system which most of us feel needs major work, is that all citizens are in as far as paying their share of medical coverage, like the citizens of the Netherlands.. As we do know regarding Social Security...there are some who are against it, feel they could do a better job on investing their $ then the government but I know that if polled, asked..great majority don't want to do away with SS...as far as those who don't agree...basically majority has said.."tough nuggies"...
|
|