Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Health Care Options · View
DamonX
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:15:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 799
This has been quite the hot topic in the US for the last year or so. The nation seems pretty divided on whether or not to adopt a national health care plan. Let's hear your views and reasoning, whether you be pro or con. Personally, I'm baffled as to why the resistance is so great.

And for those outside the US and Canada, feel free to include the details of your own nation's health care plans and your insight on the issue.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:49:07 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
I'll be interested to hear from some of the people who oppose universal health care. In my life, in the circle of people I live and work around, we are happy that something- however bad it might be- is coming soon. Or at least we think it is- after all, it did get signed into law but they are saying 2012 before anything really happens.

Like lots of people I know, I have no health care at all, and the option to buy some private plan is an expensive joke, and would exclude most things, and would require mountains of paperwork and process delays for the things it would actually cover. I keep hearing that health care is not a right- but how is it better for people who have no money to receive no medical care, or bankrupt ourselves if we go to the hospital and/or have something really bad happen to us? Plus, I've heard/read several times that the money the US spends on health care per person is more than in other countries that actually do have universal health care. For the same money, what would the big problem be?

One other thought- for those that believe private insurance companies are the way to go, and we shouldn't have government-run health care- how can we think that a company who is responsible to stockholders to turn profits is going to really put a patient's well-being first? We'd have to be stupid and naive to believe that, yet they all are for-profit companies. If insurance carriers were non-profit, I think the whole system would have a chance to be patient first, and work toward a healthy society, versus just making as much money as possible by jacking up rates and refusing coverage for bogus reasons.



LadyX
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:50:11 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
REMINDER: Please do not turn this discussion into a my country vs. your country debate, and do not use this as a platform to spew political venom. Let's speak our minds, but do it with the purpose of sharing insights and opinions, not to beat each other over the head with talking points.
nicola
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:18:59 PM

Rank: Matriarch
Moderator

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 27,617
Have you watched "Sicko" Damon?
DamonX
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:59:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 799
nicola wrote:
Have you watched "Sicko" Damon?


Yes I have. Why?
nicola
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:12:57 PM

Rank: Matriarch
Moderator

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 27,617
Why? Because I'm interested to know what you thought about it.

I know little of Australia's health care system, other than they are extremely overworked, and underpaid. A friend of mine is a nurse who works in intensive care here, she goes to the UK often, where she earns double what she does here.



SweetPenny
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:30:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/15/2010
Posts: 1,274
Location: State of Confusion
I think that every time the government gets involved, things get worse instead of better. If we are serious about lowering the cost of health care, then tort reform needs to be a priority.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:34:49 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 819,716
Living in Canada my whole life I have never experienced not having coverage. Why anyone would be reluctant is beyond me, knowing you can just show up at the ER and recieve what ever care needed for free minus a few small things is a great feeling. lol. I wouldn't even want to know how much it would've cost to have something like a c-section or any kind of surgery. I know that health care isn't free in Canada by any means because of all the taxes we pay, but it is more than worth it. I feel that even though it is government run it's better than nothing. I find the health care system here very compasstionate and affordable.
flower flower flower
DamonX
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:02:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 799
nicola wrote:
Why? Because I'm interested to know what you thought about it.

I know little of Australia's health care system, other than they are extremely overworked, and underpaid. A friend of mine is a nurse who works in intensive care here, she goes to the UK often, where she earns double what she does here.





Well, I thought it was an enlightening view into the aspects of the american health care system, but really didn't present anything that I wasn't aware of previously. Unfortunately, until someone makes a movie about it...nobody cares or pays any attention. It would be great if people could pay attention to important issues without having partisan mass media shoved down their throats, but apparently that seems to be the only way to reach the masses.

Guest
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:29:53 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 819,716
and there are sooooo many factors that have led to this, reasons why our healthcare so expensive and its not all just greedy insurance companies (although they for sure do play their part) but really, in my opinion, if for the last few decades if we had exercised more personal responsibility we would not be in this mess.

frivolous law suits drove up malpractice and actually put a lot of good doctors out of business, eating and drugging ourselves to the point we need medical intervention but cant pay for it. so we go to the state hospitals where we receive the best health care for free. hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year on surgeries, test and procedures that would not be at all necessary if the people were responsible for the state of their own health.

case in point..a young mother, a nice girl actually from a good family came to my husband MICU she needed heart surgery due to complications from her heroine addiction. she did not have insurance. they fixed her put her in rehab and she cleaned up. 7 months later she was back for another surgery and another rehab stint. they fixed her and she cleaned up. a year later she goes thru the cycle again but this time even after the surgery her heart was just too damaged to sustain her life and her parents had to decide to remove support. and she passed. that one patient cost our tax payers THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! people who scream against this plan never seem to understand that we already pay for the uninsured.

personal responsibility and end of life education so that we can allow our eldery to go to hospice instead of staying for weeks and months on a vent would save us billions.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:32:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
When I was treated for cancer in 1985, the treatment costs somewhere around $50,000. My mom still has the bill, but I don't remember the exact number. Thankfully that was covered by OHIP (Ontario's Health Insurance Policy). I'm not sure what my parents would have done to pay for it if it had not been covered. We've always straddled the line between low income, and lower middle class, so a cost like that for my parents with 2 children under 3 years of age, would have severely hampered their financial situation for years, possibly bankrupting them.

That personal experience is why I appreciate a health care plan, provided by the government, that includes people of all incomes, and doesn't exclude any necessary procedure. I'm not saying our system is perfect. It has its flaws, partially due to mismanagement, and partially because of structural flaws, but I would never want to abandon universal health care.
Bunny12
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:33:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 1,033
Location: My own little world, United States
I am totally against a national health care system in the US because the government totally fucks EVERYTHING up!!! Also who is going to pay for it I think China is about to cut us off? I mean come on people Medicare fraud runs rampant. Open up the free market, do away with stupid government regulations that won't allow insurance to be sold across state lines and some tort reform to control the money hungry lawyers and a good bit of the problem will fix itself. If we can't start with these small steps a leap into a nationally run system will be a disaster. When our economy collapses we are going to take the world with us!

Bunny12


Bunny Rabbits cute and fuzzy they want to love you but they have razor sharp teeth - don't piss them off!
xCindyx3
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:36:16 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
I live in Canada with the health care everyone is so proud of. But personally, I think that the US's Health Care is much better. At least it was. I really don't know the details on this, but I can tell that enough people never wanted this health care plan in the United States. Health Care is a privilege, not a right. Right now, recovering from a recession, it doesn't make sence for them to be putting so much money into Health Care. Universal health care is so left wing. People will lose the ability to pay for better health care if they can afford it, and the government will be taxing the rich more just to afford to give poorer people health care they cannot afford. If you think about it, it really doesnt make sence. Forcing the richer people to pay extra so that the poor can have the same. One word. Communism.
Going a little off topic.. But I beleive in a world where people have to work for what they get. Meaning paying for your own health care. Not relying on the government to tax rich people so they can give it to you for free.
Now I know there are some special cases and some people just can't afford some of the health care they need.
Maybe in the US they should provide a public Health Care for people who cant afford it. But also private hospitals where people pay just so that they could have the opportunity to get the best treatment they are paying for. Because if people think they are getting ripped off, like I'm sure most rich people do. They will leave. It happens in Canada all the time. All the best Doctors always end up going to the Unites States for better pay. What is the government going to do? Tax people even more to keep up the Doctors pay? Or go into more debt that future generations will end up paying off when everyone finally decides that its not a good idea?
But really, what do I know?...
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:02:39 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:

Now I know there are some special cases and some people just can't afford some of the health care they need.
Maybe in the US they should provide a public Health Care for people who cant afford it.


Well, I'm pretty sure there are millions and millions of 'special cases' where poeple can't afford the health care they need. The whole purpose of the new system they just passed into law is to provide exactly what you just suggested, not to force anyone into it.

Quote:
But also private hospitals where people pay just so that they could have the opportunity to get the best treatment they are paying for..


We already have those- I think the majority of hospitals here in the US are private.

Quote:
I mean come on people Medicare fraud runs rampant.


I really have a hard time with the logic that nothing should be done to fix an obvious problem because some fraud exists. Even if its 'a lot' of fraud, isn't that reason to solve the fraud problem, not deny coverage to those that need it? And I know money is a giant problem here in the US, but again- the money we already spend on health care is more per person than in countries where everyone gets coverage. The problem of untangling red tape to free that money is a problem I would concede is hard to solve.

Lots of people, including me, work damn hard for what they have- but the cost of ininsured health care might as well be in monopoly money. People say- "nobody will turn you down in the emergency room". Gee, great, and you'll also send me a bill for $900 after I waited 6 hours to get seen. Awesome system we have here. Too bad I don't have $400/month and a corporate employer to get this great healthcare some people still talk about.

There's no way anyone without MAJOR money can just work uninsured medical bills into their budgets, unless all you have are an infection every blue moon- and lets face it: everytime you have a child or something goes wrong, that's when lack of insurance becomes a problem. If we were all young, healthy, and sterile, this would not be an issue.

I agree also that being unhealthy in our lives is not helping matters, and I know lawsuits freak insurance companies out and drive up costs- but I'll propose it again, since private health care will not cease to exist in the US, even with the new public health plan:

Make insurance companies non-profit. How can you trust a company that is trusted by stockholders to make as much cash for them as possible, to put your sick mother or child first?
xCindyx3
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:38:51 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
Quote:
Well, I'm pretty sure there are millions and millions of 'special cases' where poeple can't afford the health care they need. The whole purpose of the new system they just passed into law is to provide exactly what you just suggested, not to force anyone into it.


Yes, you're right. But I'm just wondering who is going to pay for it. The tax payers right? And who pays the most taxes? The people with a greater income. Either that or the government was planning on putting your country into even worse debt which is a whole other problem itself.
And forcing people into it... well I really don't know as much considering I don't live in the United States and I haven't really done much research. But as I recall from the news, there were many people who really didn't want Obama's health care bill to pass. But they tried to push it through anyway. Even with it getting rejected once. They then revised the bill and as I saw on the news, some of the congress were getting treatened from their jobs if they voted against the bill. So not exactally "forced".
LePush
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:41:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/12/2010
Posts: 59
Location: Rocky Mountains
Had a bout with cancer and 8 abdominal surgeries that followed . Fought the insurance company every step of the way as the questioned the validity of my need for medical care. Accumulated debt to the tune of 450,000.00 and had to file bankruptcy due to all the costs and inability to work because of the illness. I WAS covered by insurance. Now I refuse to play the insurance companies games . I see the doctors I want, pay out of pocket instead of paying premiums. I also see doctors who are refusing to take insurance they don't want to be controlled either. Change in health care will have to be a grassroots movement by individuals doctors and patients who will not play "big brothers" games. Char

May your orgasms be multiple.
Charlese Le'Push
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:55:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
xCindyx3 wrote:
Quote:
Well, I'm pretty sure there are millions and millions of 'special cases' where poeple can't afford the health care they need. The whole purpose of the new system they just passed into law is to provide exactly what you just suggested, not to force anyone into it.


Yes, you're right. But I'm just wondering who is going to pay for it. The tax payers right? And who pays the most taxes? The people with a greater income. Either that or the government was planning on putting your country into even worse debt which is a whole other problem itself.
And forcing people into it... well I really don't know as much considering I don't live in the United States and I haven't really done much research. But as I recall from the news, there were many people who really didn't want Obama's health care bill to pass. But they tried to push it through anyway. Even with it getting rejected once. They then revised the bill and as I saw on the news, some of the congress were getting treatened from their jobs if they voted against the bill. So not exactally "forced".


Society needs its members, even the lower class, to be functioning, and contributing. If they can't get the treatment they need, or they go bankrupt because of it, that ends up hurting society even more. A bankruptcy doesn't just cost the hospitals money, it costs all the other businesses the money that individual owed them. When you stop being able to pay your bills, you stop being able to pay all of them, not just the one that pushed you over the edge. That is money society will never recover. If the bills are high enough, they can lead to business failures, when they aren't paid.

Whether you go with a non-profit, or government controlled insurance option, it means that any member of society who can be healed, will be healed, and they can continue to contribute to society. Everyone pays in, and everyone benefits from it, if and when they need to.
Jillicious
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:05:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
It is hard to argue with those who have been helped with their state medical plans.
But I would like to point out that it is the state, not the federal government, who should be providing health care to it's citizens. This could be argued with the 10th amendment but I assume there will be many here who would disregard that argument. I am not opposed to health care plans, although I believe privatization and the removal of silly regulations would be more effective; as Bunny said.

For me it comes down to one question. Why would we want to give our health coverage to the most wasteful and inefficient entity on the planet? This government has proven time and time again that the bureaucracy must grow in order to satisfy the needs of the bureaucracy. It doesn't matter if you identify as a republican or democrat, you have both been lied to many times but continue to believe. It reminds me of those key chains that say "How do you keep a blonde busy for hours? (flip over)"

And it will be 2014 before it is finally enacted. However, you should be seeing it in your taxes now.

The state of Idaho has already passed a bill letting the fed know that they can take a flying leap. They have also started a class action law suit against the fed. Idaho is not alone. The attorneys general of Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington and South Dakota joined in the lawsuit. I guess the outcome of that will let us know if the 10th amendment means anything.

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:15:58 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 819,716
[/quote]Society needs its members, even the lower class, to be functioning, and contributing. If they can't get the treatment they need, or they go bankrupt because of it, that ends up hurting society even more. [/quote]


but when they do not comply with their doctors guidance towards better health when do we get to say enough! im not going to pay for your insulin your surgeries your transplants any more! you have exhausted your free ride?
Swanny
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:17:58 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/22/2010
Posts: 12
Location: VA
xCindyx3 wrote:
I live in Canada with the health care everyone is so proud of. But personally, I think that the US's Health Care is much better. At least it was. I really don't know the details on this, but I can tell that enough people never wanted this health care plan in the United States. Health Care is a privilege, not a right. Right now, recovering from a recession, it doesn't make sence for them to be putting so much money into Health Care. Universal health care is so left wing. People will lose the ability to pay for better health care if they can afford it, and the government will be taxing the rich more just to afford to give poorer people health care they cannot afford. If you think about it, it really doesnt make sence. Forcing the richer people to pay extra so that the poor can have the same. One word. Communism.
Going a little off topic.. But I beleive in a world where people have to work for what they get. Meaning paying for your own health care. Not relying on the government to tax rich people so they can give it to you for free.
Now I know there are some special cases and some people just can't afford some of the health care they need.
Maybe in the US they should provide a public Health Care for people who cant afford it. But also private hospitals where people pay just so that they could have the opportunity to get the best treatment they are paying for. Because if people think they are getting ripped off, like I'm sure most rich people do. They will leave. It happens in Canada all the time. All the best Doctors always end up going to the Unites States for better pay. What is the government going to do? Tax people even more to keep up the Doctors pay? Or go into more debt that future generations will end up paying off when everyone finally decides that its not a good idea?
But really, what do I know?...


BRAVO Cindy. We have the best doctors, the best care, and the market that great doctors in places like Canada flock to because of the market our healthcare has operated in for so long. The market we DID have encouraged growth, development, advancement.

Enter government bureaucracy. Medicare, fail. Medicaid, fail. Social Security, fail. All are (or are going) bankrupt, and yet we think this massive healthcare overhaul will save us somehow? The same healthcare bill that senior government officials exempted themselves from. But lets go ahead and trust them after their multitude of failures.

How about we trust in ourselves? How about we fund some hospitals with CHARITY? One of the things that has made this country great is that we, as individuals, WORK. We work HARD for what we have. And we GIVE equally.

Let some enterprising young person start a hospital on donations, see how fast it takes off. See how many drug addicts that have had heart surgery three times get treated, and see how many doctors flock to it. Some people deserve treatment they can't afford, and some people don't deserve the treatment this country affords them. As much as we choose to believe that people in this country don't have compassion, it is simply not true. You have to open your eyes and look around you. LOOK, not be fed.

We live our lives on the backs of men that saw and FOUGHT for the truth, Now we hide and hope that we'll be left alone.

Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:23:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Jillicious wrote:
For me it comes down to one question. Why would we want to give our health coverage to the most wasteful and inefficient entity on the planet? This government has proven time and time again that the bureaucracy must grow in order to satisfy the needs of the bureaucracy. It doesn't matter if you identify as a republican or democrat, you have both been lied to many times but continue to believe. It reminds me of those key chains that say "How do you keep a blonde busy for hours? (flip over)"


I've never understood this reasoning. Just how innefficient is the government? The argument was made here that private business could run our electricity system more efficiently, but when we privatized Ontario's power system, the price went up. The US has higher costs for healthcare than any other country. Including those run by governments. That doesn't seem to be an example of private business making it more efficient, and less expensive for patients.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:39:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
LittleMissBitch wrote:
Quote:
Society needs its members, even the lower class, to be functioning, and contributing. If they can't get the treatment they need, or they go bankrupt because of it, that ends up hurting society even more.



but when they do not comply with their doctors guidance towards better health when do we get to say enough! im not going to pay for your insulin your surgeries your transplants any more! you have exhausted your free ride?


There will be people who abuse the system. It's part of what raises insurance costs even in private insurance companies. But there is a huge difference between being too poor to pay for coverage, and abusing the system. If you are barely paying your bills, and then get sick, not only can you not work because of the sickness, but you can't afford the treatment so you can go back to work.

What it comes down to is which side you prefer to err on. If you have a universal system, then everyone who deserves treatment gets it, even if you end up paying a little extra to cover people who don't take care of themselves. If you make everyone pay their own way, it means you don't pay for the system abusers, but it also means that people die who can't afford treatment they deserved to get.

I'm willing to spend a couple hundred dollars a year extra to avoid the death of one innocent person.
xCindyx3
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:52:00 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
Quote:
It is hard to argue with those who have been helped with their state medical plans.
But I would like to point out that it is the state, not the federal government, who should be providing health care to it's citizens. This could be argued with the 10th amendment but I assume there will be many here who would disregard that argument.


Agreed. It is hard to argue. Especially with a sad story. And without being "politically incorrect."
xCindyx3
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:06:02 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
Quote:
If you have a universal system, then everyone who deserves treatment gets it, even if you end up paying a little extra to cover people who don't take care of themselves. If you make everyone pay their own way, it means you don't pay for the system abusers, but it also means that people die who can't afford treatment they deserved to get.

I'm willing to spend a couple hundred dollars a year extra to avoid the death of one innocent person.


That is true. "even if you end up paying a little extra to cover people who don't take care of themselves."
The problem is we don't get a choice on whether we help. If someone wanted to be completely rich and not help anyone, so be it. Let them. Don't force them to pay though taxes. Someone above mentioned charity. I think that is the best way. You said you would be willing to pay a couple hundred dollars a year. Thats charity. I personally would too. If I knew it was going to someone who deserved it. But I really think that the money to cover those who can't afford the health care should come from people willing to help. Not from the government forcing it. I think we would all be surprised on how much people would help if they had the choice.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:16:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
xCindyx3 wrote:

That is true. "even if you end up paying a little extra to cover people who don't take care of themselves."
The problem is we don't get a choice on whether we help. If someone wanted to be completely rich and not help anyone, so be it. Let them. Don't force them to pay though taxes. Someone above mentioned charity. I think that is the best way. You said you would be willing to pay a couple hundred dollars a year. Thats charity. I personally would too. If I knew it was going to someone who deserved it. But I really think that the money to cover those who can't afford the health care should come from people willing to help. Not from the government forcing it. I think we would all be surprised on how much people would help if they had the choice.

If you are still paying, then what's the difference whether you pay in to a fund with everyone else, or get to call it "charity?" While lower income people will appreciate charity, they don't want to depend on it. For one, it's not guaranteed, and two, they have their pride. Give them a way to work within the system and they will. They pay taxes just like anyone else.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:17:52 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
xCindyx3 wrote:
And forcing people into it... well I really don't know as much considering I don't live in the United States and I haven't really done much research. But as I recall from the news, there were many people who really didn't want Obama's health care bill to pass. But they tried to push it through anyway. Even with it getting rejected once. They then revised the bill and as I saw on the news, some of the congress were getting treatened from their jobs if they voted against the bill. So not exactally "forced".


By 'forcing people into it', I was saying that nobody is forced to opt into the plan they passed. You seem to be talking about congresspeople and the pressure from voters to either vote for or against the bills. That's not really an issue here- they get pressure on both sides of any issue. The law passed, and congresspeople will either get more support or get voted out based on the 'body of their work', not just a health care bill. Bills get argued, stalled, rejected, rewritten, all the time. That's the way it works, this bill is not special for having gone through several versions before passing.

I hear the argument that 'government has lied to us over and over, why would we trust them with our healthcare?' I'm the last person to trust government to do anything for common people. In fact the only people I trust less than government are...Corporations: people that exist as moneymaking organizations first, and everything else is a distant second. Lawmakers might be on the take, assuming we're all marks that will believe any damn thing tell tell us (and they are mostly right about that), but at least we can vote them out of office if we come out of our potato chip and light beer comas long enough to actually care and vote. We can't fire a CEO, or a board of directors- and as long as they make money for their people, anyone who could fire them won't, because they are doing what they exist to do: to make money any way they can.

Cindy's right, taxpayers will pay, and I assume that those with more money to pay will pay a higher percentage- I'm risking a threadjack by asking what the alternative to that would be, so I won't go there here. And I certainly respect the points that we either have to cut a lot of fat or taxpayers will only take so much before they just stop paying and the system fails that way- that point is not lost on me.

As for the bill that just got passed- I don't know anyone who thinks it's going to 'save us' as Swanny mentioned. It's not a giant fix that will transform society as far as I understand, but it will extend coverage to lots that otherwise can't get coverage for the money they have available, and for that, it's an improvement over nothing at all. He and Cindy also mentioned Charity- I think that's a great idea, and a great tradition that hopefully will hold on, but I have a hard time buying the argument that lots of giving people won't do so because they're disgusted by 200 in tax dollars going toward a public health option, when they'd gladly hand over that money in cash to...who? Are they going to drive to South Oak Cliff here in Dallas? Panarama City in LA? Which scary ghetto are they going to drive into to hand out this charity money? I agree there are giving people, and the charity hospital idea (which we already have many of) is awesome- but if that hasn't picked up the slack in the last 60 years, I think it's time to stop waiting for it to happen, and get some basic coverage for poor people that aren't going to be buying corporate insurance from Blue Cross anytime soon, unless they rob somebody for the premiums.

Many of us grew up in areas full of others who have little and money for nothing else. There was not a steady stream of people driving through offering charity and help. That is not to say that this country isn't full of generous people- I know that lots and lots are just that. But to say that a tens-of-millions-of-citizens gap in healthcare is going to be filled by people willing to fund Humana HMO policies out of the goodness of their hearts is funny at best.
Swanny
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:26:52 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/22/2010
Posts: 12
Location: VA
Jebru wrote:
LittleMissBitch wrote:
Quote:
Society needs its members, even the lower class, to be functioning, and contributing. If they can't get the treatment they need, or they go bankrupt because of it, that ends up hurting society even more.



but when they do not comply with their doctors guidance towards better health when do we get to say enough! im not going to pay for your insulin your surgeries your transplants any more! you have exhausted your free ride?


There will be people who abuse the system. It's part of what raises insurance costs even in private insurance companies. But there is a huge difference between being too poor to pay for coverage, and abusing the system. If you are barely paying your bills, and then get sick, not only can you not work because of the sickness, but you can't afford the treatment so you can go back to work.

What it comes down to is which side you prefer to err on. If you have a universal system, then everyone who deserves treatment gets it, even if you end up paying a little extra to cover people who don't take care of themselves. If you make everyone pay their own way, it means you don't pay for the system abusers, but it also means that people die who can't afford treatment they deserved to get.

I'm willing to spend a couple hundred dollars a year extra to avoid the death of one innocent person.


And yet another entitlement program is born. People that have 5 kids and can't raise them....it's not their fault. They have a Cadi with rims, but they can't feed their kids, so I should give them MORE of my money. Can't educate their kids, here's some more. Can't get your kids their shots, here's some more....

Then I lose the incentive to work because I pay for all the people that don't. So you pay more, then you stop working.....

It's all OK though, everybody that doesn't do anything is taken care of. Not because they pulled themselves out of what they were born into, but because I did, you did....their neighbor did. We should all pay for the ones that didn't do anything but have a bunch of kids and sit on the couch.

It's not fair to them to NOT have what the rest of us that have worked for it DO HAVE. We'll all just pay a little bit more until everything we work for is gone!
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:37:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Swanny wrote:
Jebru wrote:
LittleMissBitch wrote:
Quote:
Society needs its members, even the lower class, to be functioning, and contributing. If they can't get the treatment they need, or they go bankrupt because of it, that ends up hurting society even more.



but when they do not comply with their doctors guidance towards better health when do we get to say enough! im not going to pay for your insulin your surgeries your transplants any more! you have exhausted your free ride?


There will be people who abuse the system. It's part of what raises insurance costs even in private insurance companies. But there is a huge difference between being too poor to pay for coverage, and abusing the system. If you are barely paying your bills, and then get sick, not only can you not work because of the sickness, but you can't afford the treatment so you can go back to work.

What it comes down to is which side you prefer to err on. If you have a universal system, then everyone who deserves treatment gets it, even if you end up paying a little extra to cover people who don't take care of themselves. If you make everyone pay their own way, it means you don't pay for the system abusers, but it also means that people die who can't afford treatment they deserved to get.

I'm willing to spend a couple hundred dollars a year extra to avoid the death of one innocent person.


And yet another entitlement program is born. People that have 5 kids and can't raise them....it's not their fault. They have a Cadi with rims, but they can't feed their kids, so I should give them MORE of my money. Can't educate their kids, here's some more. Can't get your kids their shots, here's some more....

Then I lose the incentive to work because I pay for all the people that don't. So you pay more, then you stop working.....

It's all OK though, everybody that doesn't do anything is taken care of. Not because they pulled themselves out of what they were born into, but because I did, you did....their neighbor did. We should all pay for the ones that didn't do anything but have a bunch of kids and sit on the couch.

It's not fair to them to NOT have what the rest of us that have worked for it DO HAVE. We'll all just pay a little bit more until everything we work for is gone!


I didn't realise that Canada, and other countries with universal, government sponsored healthcare programs just gave up and sat on our asses, because of some sense of entitlement.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:39:46 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
Let's not characterize entire countries, good or bad.

I also see a stereotype being invoked that basically implies that the lower-income class- as a whole- sits around in luxury cars and houses collecting welfare checks and other government handouts.

Both tend toward being offensive and are discouraged here. This is a great discussion, let's keep it cool and clean as possible.
xCindyx3
Posted: Friday, July 23, 2010 12:16:27 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 25
Location: Canada
Quote:
And yet another entitlement program is born. People that have 5 kids and can't raise them....it's not their fault. They have a Cadi with rims, but they can't feed their kids, so I should give them MORE of my money. Can't educate their kids, here's some more. Can't get your kids their shots, here's some more....

Then I lose the incentive to work because I pay for all the people that don't. So you pay more, then you stop working.....


You are much better at this then I am icon_smile I totally agree with this part.

Quote:
If you are still paying, then what's the difference whether you pay in to a fund with everyone else, or get to call it "charity?" While lower income people will appreciate charity, they don't want to depend on it. For one, it's not guaranteed, and two, they have their pride. Give them a way to work within the system and they will. They pay taxes just like anyone else.


This isn't about me. I could care less if I could call it "charity" or not. Just because I am willing to pay, doesn't mean that everone else is. And they should have the right to decide on where there money is going. My main issue with this is government control. The more control they have, the more it scares me. They control OUR money and who it goes to.
Pride. So it makes a differance whether they get their money in charity or whether they just get it for free at the expense of everyone else? This is a little contradicting. Pride! that means they would not take charity because they have pride! So they would die, or let their children die becasue they want to keep their pride? I really don't think that pride would matter at that point. The ones that deserve pride are the ones that can help themselves or the ones that can let someone help them, and then make themselves into somthing.
Your right, charity is not guaranteed. Thats why they should be self sufficient. I guess I have differant views coming from a good home. But putting myself in their shoes... If I needed help, I would take it if offered, but would never expect anyone to help me. I know I'm going way off topic but some people get so used to the help they become dependant on it. And that helps no one. With limited help like charity, it allows people to get the help they need and then either get themselfs somewhere or do the exact same thing again making us pay for it...again. Now that has a bit more to do with welfare.
Some people are perfactly able to work, but don't. And they get free heath care as well? Like I said before, Health Care is not a right, but a privaledge. Not everyone can afford it, meaning not everyone can have it. So the ones who cannot afford it should suck up their pride and HOPE that someone will help them and not expect the government to do so.
This case is really hard. You will never know who deserves to get free Heath Care and who doesnt, but that doesn't mean we should give it to everyone.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.