Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If I could summon forth some anxiety...[/quote]

I don't have any. I was never a believer in American exceptionalism but neither do I believe we are such a collection of dolts that we cannot (with some measure of success) do what basically every other wealthy country has done.

You don't see all that many people attempting to make an actual argument against reform.

Probably because there isn't one. Anyone else hear about the paid stooges going around to townhall meetings with the express purpose of NOT having an intelligent debate?

If the government does a worse job than the free market is doing right now for our collective health care(37th place), will the government relinquish control of it?

Define "worse" (many are positively schizo on this point), is it if we start covering everyone and then slip to 38th place?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
still spreading the 37th place socialist progaganda study I see :) You know, the statistic from the study which counts giving someone dying from a gunshot wound a bandaid as "received healthcare."

When dealing with your health. Quality is more important Quantity. Other places may have more quantity, but USA has the exclusive on quality. There is no reason to not have healthcare in the USA now - the elderly/disabled/low income get Medicare/Medicaid already and workers get private insurance, or the opportunity to buy it if working parttime or at a discounted rate in school.
 
[quote name='Ruined']still spreading the 37th place socialist progaganda study I see :) You know, the statistic from the study which counts giving someone dying from a gunshot wound a bandaid as "received healthcare."

When dealing with your health. Quality is more important Quantity. Other places may have more quantity, but USA has the exclusive on quality. There is no reason to not have healthcare in the USA now - the elderly/disabled/low income get Medicare/Medicaid already and workers get private insurance, or the opportunity to buy it if working parttime or at a discounted rate in school.[/QUOTE]

Where does the US rank in terms of bankruptcy due to medical bills?

Is quality more important than quantity there, too?

Are you arguing Medicare or Medicaid are good?

Are you arguing private insurance is affordable in an environment with 20% unemployment?

Are you arguing the shitty insurance for parttime workers or students is worth a damn?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Where does the US rank in terms of bankruptcy due to medical bills?

Is quality more important than quantity there, too?

Are you arguing Medicare or Medicaid are good?

Are you arguing private insurance is affordable in an environment with 20% unemployment?

Are you arguing the shitty insurance for parttime workers or students is worth a damn?[/QUOTE]

Ruined will quibble (he hasn't proved a damn thing) about WHO's methodology, yet claim the US is number one based on?... how much we pay?

Again, no one is saying our doctors suck it is the system that is the problem.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Are you arguing Medicare or Medicaid are good?
[/QUOTE]

They suck. Which is funny, because the "public option" seems to follow in the footsteps of those two programs pretty closely.

[quote name='Msut77']Again, no one is saying our doctors suck it is the system that is the problem.[/QUOTE]
Our doctor's (and researchers, equipment and facilities) are a product of our "system". You can't take a major component of "the system" and pretend it operates in a vacuum.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Where does the US rank in terms of bankruptcy due to medical bills?

Is quality more important than quantity there, too?

Are you arguing Medicare or Medicaid are good?

Are you arguing private insurance is affordable in an environment with 20% unemployment?

Are you arguing the shitty insurance for parttime workers or students is worth a damn?[/QUOTE]

Are you arguing that if every single person in the USA can't get premium healthcare, then everyone should be forced into shit healthcare? Because it seems you are leaning that way. The vast, vast majority of people have private insurance, medicaid, medicare, COBRA if between jobs, student insurance, etc, or simply elect not to pay for healthcare because they are healthy.

Our system is not perfect, and its not worth scrapping the highest quality healthcare system in the world for a slop trough public healthcare option simply because a small percentage (many of which aren't even legal citizens) can't get coverage under the existing system. Obamacare is healthcare for the healthy (grandma & chronic ill might as well be sent off on the ice float), intrusive gov't control of our everyday life masked as "preventative care," will be the largest step backwards our contry has taken in ages if passed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
 
[quote name='UncleBob']They suck.[/quote]

For what they are, they are very effective.

Our doctor's (and researchers, equipment and facilities) are a product of our "system".

There is a distinction. You may not grasp it but it is there, it has even been talked about in this thread.

You can't take a major component of "the system" and pretend it operates in a vacuum.

That applies more to what Ruined says (if he has a methodology apart from ideological fealty mind you) then what I said.

Again the only thing we are #1 is in how much we pay and how many we exclude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']They suck. Which is funny, because the "public option" seems to follow in the footsteps of those two programs pretty closely.
[/QUOTE]

That is what worries me about socialized medicine.

If it sucks, you can't move on to something else.

However, I think Msut touched on this.

Medicaid and Medicare aren't meant to compete with the level of service our private insurance can provide people who can afford. Medicaid and Medicare skim around 7% of wages from workers and another 7% from employers (a backdoor tax on the employee). Currently, the median private health plan is $12,000 with a median income of $44,389.
 
I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?[/QUOTE]

Bob wants them to die, Ruin probably does as well but wouldn't come right out and say it.

Anyhoo Bill Kristol on the Daily Show said Republicans have a plan to get companies to cover those with preexisting conditions (take that with a grain of salt) and no one said, Why now and not 5-10 years ago?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That is what worries me about socialized medicine.[/quote]

Maybe it is just because I am fairly young but that word (which is meaningless anyway) doesn't really have the negative connotations to people my age or younger it would have to someone raised on a steady diet of Evil Empire rhetoric and back to back Red Dawn viewings on Betamax.

If it sucks, you can't move on to something else.

Every single Republican just voted to keep Medicare.

Medicaid and Medicare aren't meant to compete with the level of service our private insurance can provide people who can afford. Medicaid and Medicare skim around 7% of wages from workers and another 7% from employers (a backdoor tax on the employee). Currently, the median private health plan is $12,000 with a median income of $44,389.

My Grandfather recently had a multiple bypass and a valve replaced that medicare covered and was done through one of the best hospitals around. He is alive and quite satisfied.

From what I have seen about half the people you see protesting Commiecare use Medicare or will be eligible soon.

It is not an uncommon phenomenon although it does rattle ones faith in humanity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?[/QUOTE]

My ma's one of these folks - hyper-conservative and uninsured because she has a carrier gene for a disease that will never affect her (and she's not having any more children again, I assure you).

They gloss over this idea as well as the recission (sp?) tactics. They also gloss over the tens of thousands of dollars needed to schedule major surgeries if one is uninsured. They say things like "anyone can get any medical service they need in the US," which is simply untrue.

They have very few facts to discuss, unless you think that John Stossel and people funded by the insurance industry qualify as bastions of facts.

Luckily, I am the one sibling that didn't get the gene. Two siblings are carriers and one has the disease. Under the current system, I'm the only insurable one in my family.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?[/QUOTE]

I guess this is why I don't think for profit health insurance is really a good idea. It wouldn't really make any business sense to take these people on, as the risk would be pretty high to insure them, they would more then likely lose money on these people. I guess you could force the insurance companies to insure them, but then I would guess that the insurance would probably be unaffordable then. Can anyone who is for private insurance think of any realistic solutions for this?
 
That's the issue. Insurance companies say that such a small portion of paying customers have their accounts rescinded - half a percent, they say.

But that's misleading, since those people are a huge portion of costs for the company. As opposed to me, who hasn't done a damn thing with his health insurance in years. Other than pay it.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Are you arguing that if every single person in the USA can't get premium healthcare, then everyone should be forced into shit healthcare? Because it seems you are leaning that way. The vast, vast majority of people have private insurance, medicaid, medicare, COBRA if between jobs, student insurance, etc, or simply elect not to pay for healthcare because they are healthy. [/QUOTE]

If everybody is forced into the same coverage, you have a single block of people who can more easily force changes through sheer numbers.

In our current environment, at least 20% of people out there can't buy insurance even if the average American brain could prioritize food, roof, heat, THEN health care.

Private insurance ($12,000/year average) costs more than my house ($7500/year actual).

Medicare is underfunded and will become more so as our median age goes higher. Same mess with that Social Security Ponzi scheme.

COBRA costs more than unemployment pays out.

Student insurance isn't available to families even if it is good.

Going without health insurance because one is healthy is like driving without a seat belt because one isn't in an accident.

[quote name='Ruined'] Our system is not perfect, and its not worth scrapping the highest quality healthcare system in the world for a slop trough public healthcare option simply because a small percentage (many of which aren't even legal citizens) can't get coverage under the existing system. Obamacare is healthcare for the healthy (grandma & chronic ill might as well be sent off on the ice float), intrusive gov't control of our everyday life masked as "preventative care," will be the largest step backwards our contry has taken in ages if passed.
[/QUOTE]

You keep arguing the "quality" of our health care is the highest. That very well might be true if a person's net worth has a positive sign, a nonzero number and six or seven trailing zeros and said person isn't old and has no medical conditions. Everybody to the left of 3 standard deviations right of the median? Not so much.

Obamacare is healthcare for the healthy? How is that different from the current system that tries to claim anything is a preexisting condition and denies legit claims for many customers multiple times before paying their obligation?
 
It all comes down to this: Conservatives don't want to spend money on Americans without their express written approval. They want to take the check to the charity and then have a big party thrown in their honor. If the government takes the money to insure the uninsurable, it's not an ego boost. No one is there to stroke the rich's "cock" and therefore make the rich feel better about making the world a better place.

I still haven't seen a decent plan to insure the uninsurable in the current system. There are zero guarantees that the insurance companies will even attempt to stop their ways. I even heard that some companies would choose to pay the fines rather than insure people with pre-existing conditions. For them, it will still be a better business decision to pay the gov't rather than cover everyone.
 
I don't know if this has came up in this long thread, but one thing that really needs to be done as part of reform is to make every possible effort to fight obesity in this country.

According to a blurb on page 12 in the latest newsweek, the CDC estimates that obesity costs an $147 BILLION to the health care system every year.

An obese persons requires on average an extra $1,429 in health care per year, 42% more than people of healthy weights. About 40% of that is increased prescription drug costs (drugs for diabetes, cholesterol, high blood pressure etc.) 30% is for more impatient care as the obese are more likely to be hospitalized, to have complications from procedures etc. And the other 30% is everything else--constant care needed for diabetes, more likely to need at home care, more doctor visits to get prescriptions etc.

So there's a lot of savings to be had in health care if obesity can be drastically reduced in coming decades. In short, a focus on prevention and promoting health is crucial to any type of health care reform, and obesity should be a big part of that effort.

That's all I'll add, as I don't have much interest in getting in this health care reform debate as it's one of those lost causes on forums where people don't much change their minds one way or the other.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?[/QUOTE]

For most insurance companies pre-existing conditions generally will be covered right away if you get a proof of insurance from your previous insurer (this includes COBRA). If you have a pre-existing condition and haven't been insured in a while, the condition will still be covered after a period of time (usually 3mos-1yr). It is a plain misconception that pre-existing conditions are never covered.

Also, there are areas of healthcare that could use some work such as pre-existing conditions & COBRA. But a public plan would cause far more problems than it would solve. I am not for no healthcare reform, but the extreme healthcare changes being proposed such as a public plan paving the road to singler payer is a recipe for disaster.

Sure we can reform healthcare. But lets not nuke it with a public option.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I'm curious, for those of you who are against this, what do you say to people who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?[/QUOTE]
Do you really think government will/can afford to treat everyone in a timely manner? These are the same people who gave us the debacle that was Hurricane Katrina. These are the same people who gave us Operation Northwoods, and the Gulf of Tonkin. They don't care about you. Look at any country with universal health care. They have health care rationing, and put you one a waiting list for care. Some people can't even get care. They are just written off. It will be worse than the system we have now.
 
[quote name='depascal22']It all comes down to this: Conservatives don't want to spend money on Americans without their express written approval. [/QUOTE]
I suppose I should be able to legally rob anyone I want, and use the money to do "good?"
 
[quote name='Ruined']For most insurance companies pre-existing conditions generally will be covered right away if you get a proof of insurance from your previous insurer (this includes COBRA). If you have a pre-existing condition and haven't been insured in a while, the condition will still be covered after a period of time (usually 3mos-1yr). It is a plain misconception that pre-existing conditions are never covered.

Also, there are areas of healthcare that could use some work such as pre-existing conditions & COBRA. But a public plan would cause far more problems than it would solve. I am not for no healthcare reform, but the extreme healthcare changes being proposed such as a public plan paving the road to singler payer is a recipe for disaster.

Sure we can reform healthcare. But lets not nuke it with a public option.[/QUOTE]You didn't even read my post completely, did you?

Let me spell it out for you, i don't have to worry about my condition being covered after a while because NO COMPANY WILL TAKE ME. Do you understand that, no company will except me as a customer, period. No waiting period for it to be covered, nothing.

Now again i ask, what am i and people like me supposed to do?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Do you really think government will/can afford to treat everyone in a timely manner? These are the same people who gave us the debacle that was Hurricane Katrina. These are the same people who gave us Operation Northwoods, and the Gulf of Tonkin. They don't care about you. Look at any country with universal health care. They have health care rationing, and put you one a waiting list for care. Some people can't even get care. They are just written off. It will be worse than the system we have now.[/QUOTE]Having to wait for care is a hell of a lot better than never getting it at all. It's been a few years since i even had health insurance.
 
[quote name='Ruined']For most insurance companies pre-existing conditions generally will be covered right away if you get a proof of insurance from your previous insurer (this includes COBRA). If you have a pre-existing condition and haven't been insured in a while, the condition will still be covered after a period of time (usually 3mos-1yr). It is a plain misconception that pre-existing conditions are never covered.[/QUOTE]

That is utter and complete bullshit. That might be in the fine print but the actual application of any of those rules has never been the norm. You neglect to mention that those conditions might be covered after a while but only until termination which is usually the same day as the conditions become covered.

My eyes were covered by the federal government but were considered a pre-existing condition when I got insurance through my employer less than three months after I got out of the military. I could get eyeglasses once a year and that's it. If I ever needed surgery or medical intervention, it would've come out of my pocket.

My uncle will have to pay for his eventual knee replacements because he can't get them covered because they were a pre-existing condition. Never mind that he hurt them in a jump accident serving our country. They aren't covered even though his injury happened in the mid-70s.
 
The government doesn't have to "treat" anyone.

They just need to fund a system to insure those who can't get/afford private insurance, and do what they can to reign in health care costs and get premiums down for everyone.

But as I said above, a lot needs to be done in the areas of prevention and promoting health to save costs. As well as making health care more efficient and not having lots of money wasted on unnecessary treatments pushed by doctors who want the big pay day of something like a joint replacement vs. referring to physical therapy etc.

It's just a bad system. Insurance, health care and pharmaceuticals have all become all about maximizing profits and not about helping people. Doctors should get paid well as we want talented people to pursue those careers, but people should be getting in it to help people first, and get rich second.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Having to wait for care is a hell of a lot better than never getting it at all. It's been a few years since i even had health insurance.[/QUOTE]
Under this plan you probably still won't get care. The government has to "reign in costs", and so they might tell you, "sorry, you're triaged." You would be written off, just like you are now. That's what happens in Canada, and England, and the like.
 
[quote name='depascal22']That is utter and complete bullshit. That might be in the fine print but the actual application of any of those rules has never been the norm. You neglect to mention that those conditions might be covered after a while but only until termination which is usually the same day as the conditions become covered.

My eyes were covered by the federal government but were considered a pre-existing condition when I got insurance through my employer less than three months after I got out of the military. I could get eyeglasses once a year and that's it. If I ever needed surgery or medical intervention, it would've come out of my pocket.

My uncle will have to pay for his eventual knee replacements because he can't get them covered because they were a pre-existing condition. Never mind that he hurt them in a jump accident serving our country. They aren't covered even though his injury happened in the mid-70s.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it varies by insurance company and specific diagnosis, but I have a chronic health & pain issue ongoing for the past 7 years and every time I've switched insurance companies simply giving the new insurance company a certificate of insurance from my previous insurer has given me coverage for it immediately. In these cases, however, the insurance company requires that I had recent coverage via another company, and since I've elected COBRA when changing jobs in the past that has not been an issue. I could see it being an issue in the future if I elected not to take COBRA or if for some reason some company I haven't used yet gives me a hard time, but I have not experienced anything like that yet with the 4-5 insurance companies I've had over that period of time.

I agree that this is an issue that needs some work, as does the costs of COBRA. Nuking the system with a public option is not a good solution to the problem, and if you look at Obama's specific wording of his care preventative care continues to be highlighted. i.e. "we'll pay for the healthcare by people not getting sick in the first place." But what if you do get sick or are sick? While pre-existing problems might be covered, there is no word what the other qualifications may be - i.e. age, general health, or approved procedures. I don't see why people think a public option which is going to *require* involving a cheaper, lower quality of care in order to stay financially afloat for all the people it will servce for free is going to buy them expensive procedures that premium insurance cannot afford to cover. That really doesn't make any sense logically if you think about it. Not to mention that if a true public option is offered, eventually it will be the only option and you won't even have the opportunity to try other insurance companies that may have covered a type of procedure or treatment that the public option does not. And if they are not covered, those treatments may not even make it to US shores.

So again, while I think the system could use work (pre-existing conditions & COBRA especially), I think a public option is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Under this plan you probably still won't get care. The government has to "reign in costs", and so they might tell you, "sorry, you're triaged." You would be written off, just like you are now. That's what happens in Canada, and England, and the like.[/QUOTE]


I've never heard my wife's mother and brothers in France ever say that has happened to them. I'm pretty envious of how well they have it actually and glad nothing serious has happened to my wife and I this past year while we had no health insurance. Health care along with other aspects of the way of life which we see as being better over there are pushing my wife and I closer to moving back to France.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Under this plan you probably still won't get care. The government has to "reign in costs", and so they might tell you, "sorry, you're triaged." You would be written off, just like you are now. That's what happens in Canada, and England, and the like.[/QUOTE]
In other words, i have nothing to lose.;)
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Under this plan you probably still won't get care. The government has to "reign in costs", and so they might tell you, "sorry, you're triaged." You would be written off, just like you are now. That's what happens in Canada, and England, and the like.[/QUOTE]

This doesn't make sense I'll tell you why.

France, as Homeland pointed out, has government run health care. And they are rated #1 in the world vs Americas rating of #31 at providing care.

So, this argument is no good. France is proof government run health systems don't equal bad health systems.
 
Sometimes i wonder how much of this resistance stems from American hate for European ideas. After all, why did we bother declaring independence if we're just going to imitate the British?;)
 
[quote name='HowStern']This doesn't make sense I'll tell you why.

France, as Homeland pointed out, has government run health care. And they are rated #1 in the world vs Americas rating of #31 at providing care.

So, this argument is no good. France is proof government run health systems don't equal bad health systems.[/QUOTE]
Yet, in Britain and Canada, their health insurance system is deeply flawed. Why is that?
In France they have a nice health care system, but it costs a lot
Compulsory health insurance covers the whole population. Premiums are charged as a percentage of income and the total cost is nearly 20% of payroll, including the employer's and employee's contribution. In the last few years the regime has reduced the emphasis on payroll contributions. Until recently, employers paid 12.8 percent of salary and employees 6.8 percent; but complaints by employers that they were meeting too much of the burden led to reform. Employers still pay 12.8% of an employee's salary, but the contribution rate for employees has been lowered from 5.5% at the end 1997 to 0.75%, in 2001. Simultaneously, an earmarked social security tax of 7.5% (Contribution Sociale Generalisée - CSG) was imposed on employment and investment income. Most, but not all, of this general social contribution goes toward health insurance.
I saw this article on google news, and it explains how I feel about health care reform very well:
BUFFALO, N.Y. - Imagine how much automobile insurance would cost if it paid for all expenses associated with owning an automobile – oil changes, engine failures, worn-out tires, brakes, rust, and so on. The number of people who couldn't afford car insurance would rise dramatically, and we would have a car insurance crisis in America.
That is the situation with healthcare. As health plans increasingly pay for almost every service or procedure, ameliorate our every discomfort, and succumb to every cultural whim and fad, the price of insurance continues to rise.
Health plans are paying for every imaginable benefit – while automobile insurers are not – because of both consumer demand and state mandates.
The demand for additional healthcare benefits is greater than for additional automobile insurance benefits because many people feel entitled to have access to every possible healthcare service. The costs of additional benefits are not always clear to consumers; thus, many people perceive the benefits to be "free." In response to consumer demand, health plans sometimes expand coverage on their own. In other cases, they are forced by politicians running for reelection to cover additional services or procedures.
To make health insurance more affordable, state governments should stop mandating additional benefits and rescind all of their previous mandates. In addition, both private and public insurers (such as Medicare) should agree to pay for only costly and essential medical services and procedures (similar to the way they banded together to pledge to reduce $2 trillion in healthcare expenses a few months ago).
Under the system I am proposing, health insurance would pay for emergencies and urgent care, diagnostic tests and X-rays, medically necessary surgery, hospitalization, therapy, and any other critical services that few people could afford to pay out of their own pockets. Individuals would pay for routine, discretionary, and elective services – such as doctor visits, acupuncture, marriage counseling – on their own.
This type of system – which has not yet been tried – would lower healthcare costs and make insurance more affordable for everyone, especially the uninsured, by reducing the number of healthcare services that are used. When the use of services goes up, health insurers must raise premiums to pay for the increase in expenses. This makes it more expensive for insured people to keep their health coverage, while also making it more expensive for uninsured people to purchase coverage.
Insurance is intended to be a pooling of people's money to pay for large, unexpected expenses – not for every expense that is incurred. In other words, it is supposed to be a safety net for catastrophic events.
Yet many Americans go to the doctor for all kinds of trivial ailments, because their insurance pays for it. True, many people want this type of coverage, but that is because they do not understand the long-term cost implications. If Americans want to keep the current healthcare system sustainable (and it appears they do), then they need to take on more financial responsibility for their healthcare. People who choose to visit the doctor for the sniffles should pay for it themselves rather than making everyone else pay for it. If they did, the use of services – and thus the cost of healthcare – would go down.
If we can budget for our phone, electric, cable, and gas bills, as well as for unexpected household and automobile expenses, then we can budget for routine healthcare services. This would require some families to forgo the purchase of a plasma TV, but it would make health insurance more affordable.
In addition, most health plans even cover lifestyle choices that have been sold as medical conditions by lobbyists, pharmaceutical and medical companies, politicians, the media, and pop culture. Some of these covered services – such as cosmetic procedures, birth-control pills, and abortion – do not even address a diagnosis. (Contrary to popular belief, pregnancy is not a malady.) If there is no medical condition, then health insurance should not be paying for it.
By shouldering a greater burden of their healthcare costs, Americans would probably eat more healthily, exercise more, quit smoking, and lead healthier and happier lives. A healthier population would use fewer medical services, which would lower healthcare costs and premiums.
When it comes to healthcare, we should not confuse luxury with necessity. By transforming health insurance into a system that simply pays for essential medical services and procedures, more Americans would be able to afford insurance – and there would be far fewer uninsured Americans.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0805/p09s02-coop.html
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Yet, in Britain and Canada, their health insurance system is deeply flawed. Why is that?
In France they have a nice health care system, but it costs a lot
[/QUOTE]


A nice health health care system? They have the number 1 healthcare system in the world. And, no, it doesn't cost a lot. They spend only a 3rd of what we do per person.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html

Americans widely believe that while the our health system is expensive it is nevertheless the best in the world. However, a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggests otherwise.

According to the OECD, the U.S. spends 5% of GDP more on health than France, the nation with the second highest level of health spending among the 30 wealthy countries in the organization. The average for all OECD countries is 8.9% of GDP.
We spend $7,290 per person on average versus $2,964 among all OECD countries. Norway, the nation with the second most expensive health system on a per capita basis, spends $4,763. (Currency conversions based on purchasing power parity.)




Explain that. And tell me why we shouldn't follow Frances lead? Both saving money and improving health care?
 
[quote name='HowStern']A nice health health care system? They have the number 1 healthcare system in the world. And, no, it doesn't cost a lot. They spend only a 3rd of what we do per person.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/02/health-care-costs-opinions-columnists-reform.html






Explain that. And tell me why we shouldn't follow Frances lead? Both saving money and improving health care?[/QUOTE]
1. They pay around 20% of their payroll for health care.
2. France's government is not run by idiots who only work for special intrests.
The plan that I pointed to would also save money and improve care. What's wrong with that one?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']1. They pay around 20% of their payroll for health care.
2. France's government is not run by idiots who only work for special intrests.
The plan that I pointed to would also save money and improve care. What's wrong with that one?[/QUOTE]

Well, basically if you have some kind of recurring medical problem, you would more then likely die at some point since you couldn't afford to keep getting insurance since it keeps going up. It would more then likely lead to people waiting until the absolute last moment to go to a doctor when they need to go sooner.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Well, basically if you have some kind of recurring medical problem, [/QUOTE]

Such as? Cancer would be covered, as would similar diseases. Your premium wouldn't go up much if at all, if you had cancer, as that would be covered by the pool.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']The simplest answer I can think of: They're France[/QUOTE]

Agreed, and for every France there is around 30 countries with terrible government run health care, like England and Canada.
 
How come nothing is ever said about the countries that have government-ran health care that ranked lower than the US on the WHO's report?

"See, it can be done! Look at France!"

See, it can be screwed up too...
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Such as? Cancer would be covered, as would similar diseases. Your premium wouldn't go up much if at all, if you had cancer, as that would be covered by the pool.[/QUOTE]

Whoops, sorry, read it incorrectly.:) So basically would cover major issues, but not routine things, such as checkups and such, right? So there would be no money allotted for preventative services, wouldn't that end up increasing it overall since people would wait until there was a major problem before they went to a doctor? Besides that, it doesn't sound awful, although I'm still not sure how it would affect people with preexisting conditions, would they still be able to turn people down?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']How come nothing is ever said about the countries that have government-ran health care that ranked lower than the US on the WHO's report?

"See, it can be done! Look at France!"

See, it can be screwed up too...[/QUOTE]


So thats the true american spirit? I guess thats what the "god bless America" bumper stickers are for, we need his/her/it's grace cause we screw everything up.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']How come nothing is ever said about the countries that have government-ran health care that ranked lower than the US on the WHO's report?

"See, it can be done! Look at France!"

See, it can be screwed up too...[/QUOTE]


Because there are none. UK was rated 16th. And I'm looking for canadas ranking now. Canada was ranked 30th. And I was wrong about the U.S. it wasn't 32nd it was 37th.

UK, Canada, France all ranked higher than the U.S.

Also, what kind of backwards logic...Why would we be searching for failures in a quest to improve?? We are looking at France because they do it right.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I still haven't seen a decent plan to insure the uninsurable in the current system. There are zero guarantees that the insurance companies will even attempt to stop their ways. I even heard that some companies would choose to pay the fines rather than insure people with pre-existing conditions. For them, it will still be a better business decision to pay the gov't rather than cover everyone.[/QUOTE]

Most I heard from cons about ensuring coverage for all was that offhand comment by Kristol, if I had to guess the plan? Amazingly high deductible and co-pays even though they would be "covered".

They have nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't be surprised really, companies will often do whatever is cheapest for the sake of cost effectiveness. There is an easy way to solve that though, make the fines so high that it's cheaper to just insure the people.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Because there are none. UK was rated 16th. And I'm looking for canadas ranking now. Canada was ranked 30th. And I was wrong about the U.S. it wasn't 32nd it was 37th.

UK, Canada, France all ranked higher than the U.S.

Also, what kind of backwards logic...Why would we be searching for failures in a quest to improve?? We are looking at France because they do it right.[/QUOTE]

So, the UK, Canada and France are the only countries to have socialized health care?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, the UK, Canada and France are the only countries to have socialized health care?[/QUOTE]

Everyone knows the saying "There is no such thing as a stupid question".

I never believed that.

If this is an actual question Bob other wealthy nations have Universal Healthcare such as Japan, Germany, Belgium and Switzerland.

I am positive all save Switzerland and Belgium have been mentioned in this thread.

If this isn't an actual question Bob then just come out and say whatever you wish to say.
 
bread's done
Back
Top