Guess what Greece had to give up to get bailed out?

[quote name='depascal22']This is why tiny countries can't hold the Olympics in the modern age. Oh wait, public healthcare is all to blame.[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting Public Healthcare is the new Bush?
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah, at this point he's entered "stock villian" territory.[/QUOTE]

I just love his use of the word "only" as in "only 30 some odd countries do better than us in healthcare.

It reminds me of the Simpsons quote: "America's health care system is second only to Japan, Canada, Sweden, Great Britain, ...and basically all of western Europe... But you can thank your lucky stars we don't live in Paraguay! ..."
 
[quote name='Msut77']I just love his use of the word "only" as in "only 30 some odd countries do better than us in healthcare.

It reminds me of the Simpsons quote: "America's health care system is second only to Japan, Canada, Sweden, Great Britain, ...and basically all of western Europe... But you can thank your lucky stars we don't live in Paraguay! ..."[/QUOTE]

You know what he meant, or you are just not willing to believe the fact that our health care system is one of the best in the world if you can afford insurance or better.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You know what he meant, or you are just not willing to believe the fact that our health care system is one of the best in the world if you can afford insurance or better.[/QUOTE]

Guess what, if you're rich you can get great healthcare in almost any industrialized country. It's way cheaper too - that's the whole impetus for the medical tourism industry.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It reminds me of the Simpsons quote: "America's health care system is second only to Japan, Canada, Sweden, Great Britain, ...and basically all of western Europe... But you can thank your lucky stars we don't live in Paraguay! ..."[/QUOTE]

LOL perfect. I miss the Simpsons of old, they had the guts to take a stand unlike the endlessly equivocating Southpark.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You know what he meant, or you are just not willing to believe the fact that our health care system is one of the best in the world if you can afford insurance or better.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure everybody here who doesn't think America has the greatest health care system hates America. You know who else hates America? The Islamofascists!
 
[quote name='Knoell']massive pubic spending goes hand in hand with health care spending.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily, apparently in the 2 years after Greece joined the Euro civil service pay doubled. That's civil service pay, not nurses pay. Thousands of jobs in the civil service were created just so politicians could give their friends high paying, do-nothing jobs.

The facts don't really fit the anti healthcare reform argument here, no matter how much you twist them.
 
America does have some of the best health care in the world, if you can afford it. That's the whole issue, what good is great health care if you don't have access to it?

And don't give me the old "hospitals can't turn you away" line. If it's something serious you'll end up in so much debt you'll probably have to file for bankruptcy.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']America does have some of the best health care in the world, if you can afford it. That's the whole issue, what good is great health care if you don't have access to it?

And don't give me the old "hospitals can't turn you away" line. If it's something serious you'll end up in so much debt you'll probably have to file for bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

As I said before in the other thread, there's research showing you're better off (higher survival rates) to be diagnosed with stage 2 cancer with insurance than stage 1 cancer without insurance.

If you don't have insurance or money, you just aren't going to get access to the best doctors and cutting edge treatments etc. You'll usually get the bare minimum treatment.
 
That assuming you ever even get seen, remember that person who died waiting in an ER waiting room?

From my perspective, great health care without access to it is useless, we might as well not even have it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Are you suggesting Public Healthcare is the new Bush?[/QUOTE]

For conservatives, yes. Anything that goes wrong with our country for the next couple decades will be blamed on healthcare. Conservatives will be trying to tear it apart until it's completely unrecognizable. You can already see that after the "debate".
 
[quote name='Knoell']You know what he meant, or you are just not willing to believe the fact that our health care system is one of the best in the world if you can afford insurance or better.[/QUOTE]

appstate-goalposts.jpg


We went over this before, you were wrong then and you are wrong now.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Therein lies the problem with myopia. My wife is a somewhat healthy person and she has consumed the better part of $40K in medical bills before the age of 32. The new law is trying to push people into doing the intelligent thing. The mentality of fines versus premiums forgets medical costs that would make premiums far more attractive and I hope you educate people when you run into that mindset.[/quote]

My point was, if your wife had gotten sick with no insurance when the new law takes effect, she could easily purchase insurance (insurance companies will be forced to accept her) and have her costs covered, all without having insurance in advance. Why waste money on high premiums in advance if you don't have to? Unfortunately, the new law attempts to induce people to buy insurance, but at the same time provides an even greater incentive to not buy insurance.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Dmaul pointed out a while back that people with insurance have better cancer survival rates than people without insurance even when people with insurance had a more advanced cancer than people without insurance.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...untry:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+chart

According to the chart, life expectancy has gone up. Is that because of Medicare or some other factor or their combination?[/quote]

I'd say not because of Medicare:

http://www.annals.org/content/138/4/288.short
Conclusions: Medicare enrollees in higher-spending regions receive more care than those in lower-spending regions but do not have better health outcomes or satisfaction with care. Efforts to reduce spending should proceed with caution, but policies to better manage further spending growth are warranted.
Click to expand...

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I guess we need some reeducation. If you get people involved in maintaining their health earlier, you save money. If you get people involved in maintaining their health on their death bed, you lose money.[/quote]

Were you involved in the health-care thread? This was thoroughly discussed and I presented evidence there that in a great many cases preventative care doesn't save money. It's just not as simple as you make it out to be, regardless of how logical what you wrote sounds to anyone who hasn't researched the facts.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Therein lies the problem. A set of new tits is a luxury. A new heart valve is a necessity. So, health care might seem like a luxury, but can easily be a necessity. You have dozens of countries capable of decoupling the ability to pay and treatment. Overall, their results have exceeded our results and done so for less money. If these countries were paying more for health care and having poorer overall results, I would be on the insurance companies' side.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

I think most of us (or at least the two of us) agree that the current system has huge problems, especially for those who can't afford insurance. Which is why I've advocated decoupling insurance from employment, which would be a meaningful reform with a high chance of success (unlike the bill that was passed, which nets low benefits for a sky-high cost to everyone, including adding massively to the deficit and higher insurance premiums).

[quote name='JolietJake']From my perspective, great health care without access to it is useless, we might as well not even have it.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you don't really believe that. We might as well not even have a system that treats 90% of the population well enough to have one of the highest life expectancies and quality of life in the world because the other 10% often get screwed? Wouldn't you rather agree that what we have is great but we should make changes so the 10% don't get screwed and rising costs for the other 90% are addressed? Hint: the health-care bill that was passed does neither of these.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']My point was, if your wife had gotten sick with no insurance when the new law takes effect, she could easily purchase insurance (insurance companies will be forced to accept her) and have her costs covered, all without having insurance in advance. Why waste money on high premiums in advance if you don't have to? Unfortunately, the new law attempts to induce people to buy insurance, but at the same time provides an even greater incentive to not buy insurance.[/QUOTE]

You do correct people when they exhibit this behavior, right? People understand it doesn't cover past expenses, right? If my wife decided to get insurance in March, it wouldn't have covered the $6,000 in expenses in January and February. Preferring a fine to premium only works if you ignore expenses.

[quote name='elprincipe'] I'd say not because of Medicare:

http://www.annals.org/content/138/4/288.short
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't attribute the entire increase in life expectancy to Big Gubmint. If I did, I would have to turn in my libertarian card. However, we can't assume government involvement has reduced quality of life.

[quote name='elprincipe'] Were you involved in the health-care thread? This was thoroughly discussed and I presented evidence there that in a great many cases preventative care doesn't save money. It's just not as simple as you make it out to be, regardless of how logical what you wrote sounds to anyone who hasn't researched the facts.[/QUOTE]

I'll review the posts if you remember the numbers. If you have some a birds eye view such as "preventative care is more expensive 90% of the time", I'll take a link.

[quote name='elprincipe'] I think most of us (or at least the two of us) agree that the current system has huge problems, especially for those who can't afford insurance. Which is why I've advocated decoupling insurance from employment, which would be a meaningful reform with a high chance of success (unlike the bill that was passed, which nets low benefits for a sky-high cost to everyone, including adding massively to the deficit and higher insurance premiums).[/QUOTE]

The downside between decoupling employment with insurance is employers. An employer spending $5K-20K on an employee's health care isn't going to hand a check for $5K-20K to each employee and say, "Good luck with that health insurance."
 
something is wrong with the system when institutionalized criminals receive better health care than tax-paying citizens.

something is also wrong with the system when these same criminals receive free meals and humane facilities while our homeless war veterans struggle on the streets, lay in the cemeteries, rehabilitate in hospitals, or pay the repercussions of war after returning home.

something is wrong with a system where greed is rewarded and integrity and social values are cast aside.

=====
conclusion: capitalism > patriotism > human life. (let me know if I got that wrong.)
=====
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='elprincipe']My point was, if your wife had gotten sick with no insurance when the new law takes effect, she could easily purchase insurance (insurance companies will be forced to accept her) and have her costs covered, all without having insurance in advance. Why waste money on high premiums in advance if you don't have to? Unfortunately, the new law attempts to induce people to buy insurance, but at the same time provides an even greater incentive to not buy insurance.



I'd say not because of Medicare:

http://www.annals.org/content/138/4/288.short




Were you involved in the health-care thread? This was thoroughly discussed and I presented evidence there that in a great many cases preventative care doesn't save money. It's just not as simple as you make it out to be, regardless of how logical what you wrote sounds to anyone who hasn't researched the facts.



I think most of us (or at least the two of us) agree that the current system has huge problems, especially for those who can't afford insurance. Which is why I've advocated decoupling insurance from employment, which would be a meaningful reform with a high chance of success (unlike the bill that was passed, which nets low benefits for a sky-high cost to everyone, including adding massively to the deficit and higher insurance premiums).



I'm sure you don't really believe that. We might as well not even have a system that treats 90% of the population well enough to have one of the highest life expectancies and quality of life in the world because the other 10% often get screwed? Wouldn't you rather agree that what we have is great but we should make changes so the 10% don't get screwed and rising costs for the other 90% are addressed? Hint: the health-care bill that was passed does neither of these.[/QUOTE]Why should i care about a system that I am effectively kept from using? What good is a system of health care if I can't use it?

But no, don't jump to the conclusion that I think we shouldn't have a health care system, I'm saying that for some of us we basically don't have one now.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You do correct people when they exhibit this behavior, right? People understand it doesn't cover past expenses, right? If my wife decided to get insurance in March, it wouldn't have covered the $6,000 in expenses in January and February. Preferring a fine to premium only works if you ignore expenses.[/quote]

I don't do this and don't know anyone who does. But under the new health-care law, this becomes moot. You can get insurance whenever you want. You find out you have cancer. What is to prevent you from calling the insurance company and getting insurance immediately? They have to accept you...

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'll review the posts if you remember the numbers. If you have some a birds eye view such as "preventative care is more expensive 90% of the time", I'll take a link.[/quote]

Honestly that thread's so massive I don't know that I want to go through it...maybe I'll try and find something a bit later, or look through previous posts.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The downside between decoupling employment with insurance is employers. An employer spending $5K-20K on an employee's health care isn't going to hand a check for $5K-20K to each employee and say, "Good luck with that health insurance."[/QUOTE]

Well, there are many advantages to decoupling though.

1. Eliminates employer disadvantage compared to other companies that don't offer insurance and overseas firms.
2. Transparency in health spending, which would lead to reduced costs.
3. More competition in health insurance, which would lead to reduced costs.
4. Increased salaries as businesses pass along health savings to employees (yes, I know this is what you were saying wouldn't happen, but it will at least in part)
 
Yeah, that Obamacare thread is pretty hairy.

[quote name='elprincipe']Well, there are many advantages to decoupling though.

1. Eliminates employer disadvantage compared to other companies that don't offer insurance and overseas firms.
2. Transparency in health spending, which would lead to reduced costs.
3. More competition in health insurance, which would lead to reduced costs.
4. Increased salaries as businesses pass along health savings to employees (yes, I know this is what you were saying wouldn't happen, but it will at least in part)[/QUOTE]

1. PoTAtoe, PotaTOE. Compensation is more than just what reaches your paycheck. For example, my $200 worth of cable TV for $8 has helped me turn down a handful of jobs.
2. Prices could be transparent at the hospital and posted online if people weren't in an emergency situation. Of course, hospitals would never consider posted prices.
3. Maybe. Unless you do a lot of trust busting, you'll have mergers swallowing up smaller companies and keep the current system in check.
4. 1%? 5%? You know, that CEO's boat is looking puny. We wouldn't want him getting laughed at. I would almost trust the government to hold the money and send me a check at the beginning of the year to buy insurance, but I'm not that dumb.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yeah, that Obamacare thread is pretty hairy.



1. PoTAtoe, PotaTOE. Compensation is more than just what reaches your paycheck. For example, my $200 worth of cable TV for $8 has helped me turn down a handful of jobs.
2. Prices could be transparent at the hospital and posted online if people weren't in an emergency situation. Of course, hospitals would never consider posted prices.
3. Maybe. Unless you do a lot of trust busting, you'll have mergers swallowing up smaller companies and keep the current system in check.
4. 1%? 5%? You know, that CEO's boat is looking puny. We wouldn't want him getting laughed at. I would almost trust the government to hold the money and send me a check at the beginning of the year to buy insurance, but I'm not that dumb.[/QUOTE]

Hospitals could be forced to post prices for competitive reasons. If some hospitals post prices and others don't, where will the price-conscious consumer go?

There isn't a huge barrier to entry in the insurance market. If companies got too big and weren't doing a good job, the amount of money on the line is so great surely other companies or startups would enter the market.

I knew that would be your reply on pay. There is a serious problem with executive compensation in this country stemming from back-slapping in the boardroom. But would salaries rise? Yes, if only to remain competitive with other employers where salaries would rise (it's simply not possible for 75% or so of the economy to collude).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Hospitals could be forced to post prices for competitive reasons.[/quote]

For a relative handful of services yes, for a few more than that estimates could be done but for everything?

No.

There isn't a huge barrier to entry in the insurance market.
Click to expand...

The health insurance market? You are a joke.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']There isn't a huge barrier to entry in the insurance market. If companies got too big and weren't doing a good job, the amount of money on the line is so great surely other companies or startups would enter the market.
[/QUOTE]

The huge barrier would be the millions dollars you'd need in capital. Other than that, I agree. Oh, and you'd have to get doctors and hospitals to actually accept your insurance........
 
I think one of dopa's complaints about the insurance exchanges set up through Obamacare was that they weren't big enough to compete with existing insurance companies.
 
[quote name='depascal22']The huge barrier would be the millions dollars you'd need in capital. Other than that, I agree. Oh, and you'd have to get doctors and hospitals to actually accept your insurance........[/QUOTE]

Well that and even said hypothetical tiny insurance company wouldn't have the clout to negotiate prices with healthcare service providers.
 
Greece goes batshit when their government cuts spending.

America goes batshit when Obama increases government spending.

I love this country.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Greece goes batshit when their government cuts spending.

America goes batshit when Obama increases government spending.

I love this country.[/QUOTE]

It is a perfect example of if you give the citizens some type of entitlement, you better be damn sure we can afford it, because (ie medicare, or greece) you are going to have to pry it from their cold dead hands to get it back.
 
The above of course, doesn't count for wars which never have to be paid for.

/brought to you by your friendly neighborhood teabagger
 
Still find it funny they are attacking the health care system in Greece and not the two main problems sinking the country, Retirement benefits and the non collection of taxes from the wealthy in the country. Greece had a sweet system, at 50 a hair dresser could retire and get retirement benefits that were comparable to her current salary. But hey, lets attack the easier political target instead of using Greece as a whipping boy for social security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top