Obamas stake to get socialistic NHS system in the US!

[Ed Oscuro]

Stormie, you aren't living in a Terry Gilliam flick.

The determination about what a government should or shouldn't do "ideally" is based not on some fuzzy feeling, but on the public good.

[Stormwatch]

But the public good comes from a government that does not do anything but what it has to.

[DEL]

I'm gonna trawl back and read all of this thread, because it IS and interesting subject.

For Now;

John Q (2002)
Directed by Nick Cassavetes. With Gabriela Oltean, Denzel Washington, Kimberly Elise. A down-on-his luck father, whose insurance won't cover his son's heart ...

^A copy paste from a film that highlights a problem with the current American system.

A friend of mine emigrated to the US a while back. I told him; "Alright, BUT DON'T GET ILL!!! You can't afford it."

The English Socialist NHS system is indeed abused by immigrants, so there is a problem there, I will admit. No doubt this would be an issue if this system were to be introduced in the US (as pointed out by some of you here).

However, we don't have to pay LARGE amounts on health insurance or remortgage our houses if we get seriously ill.

I will quote Jockel;

The US healthcare system is fucking terrible right now - finally somebody's here to change it for the better and people still complain.
This is insanity.

You have the makings of a Great President here. Don't be scared of change.

[D]

HEALTH CARE, PUBLIC TRANSPORT SHOULD BE FREE.

[Acid King]

they already said they will raise your taxes, if you make over 350k like T.H.E. here.
what's free? the new law makes freeloaders like acid king pay up front, because we know they will beg for care if they really need it.

This is why I try to stay out of discussions like this on this board. What exactly did I say that implied I was somehow a "freeloader"?

[Domino]

What a stupid idea to say that the government will let old people die because they don't want to pay it...
that's just right-wing propaganda.

And are you saying that left-wing propaganda is any better?

What's your problem with people who are illegaly in your country? Are their lifes worth less than yours?
Everybody can get healthcare but not them?

Yes they are not US citizens and they should go back to where they came from. They are such a huge slap in the face to foreigners who came to the US and did the process legally to become US citizens. If they can do it why not them? You have no idea how many foreign-born US citizens that I talked to over the years despise illegal immigrates (and illegal immigrates are not always Mexican you know). Of course since they are cheap labor and we love our green peppers at $1 a piece framers will continue to abuse them for all they are worth. I'm I happy about this: hell no.

The US healthcare system is fucking terrible right now - finally somebody's here to change it for the better and people still complain.
This is insanity.

Simple my friend: The US and A is broke. Democrats are spending left and right on stupid BS programs like cash for clunkers that we can't afford anything else. And IMO it won't be for the better, it would make the government go into the lives of more people which as a Libertarian (MEEEE!) that's a big no-no.

You have the makings of a Great President here. Don't be scared of change.

LOL, and his approve rating is going down the toilet.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

-8 on the Rasussen. Here's the "Change" that we want Americans.

[Jockel]

Was der Bauer nicht kennt, frisst er nicht.

@Domino: No i am not saying that left wing propaganda is better.

[antron]

they already said they will raise your taxes, if you make over 350k like T.H.E. here.
what's free? the new law makes freeloaders like acid king pay up front, because we know they will beg for care if they really need it.

This is why I try to stay out of discussions like this on this board. What exactly did I say that implied I was somehow a "freeloader"?

you stated earlier that you do not have insurance. who is going to pay your bill if you you need very expensive care? it would be different if you were really gambling and we got to let you die, but we are a humane country and everyone gets care. then the hospital passes on the loss to everyone else to stay in business.

[antron]

Imagine Obama goes up on stage and has this woman with him that needs $180,000 worth of treatment. Without it she would die in 60 days. She can't afford it. Obama explains that with the new social system she will be saved. He then asks those who do not want a socialistic system to raise their hands if they want her to die! Would you raise your hand? Would you raise your hand if it was your sister? Or your mother?

Imagine that 180 people need medicines that will cost $1000... you get my drift.

But that's still missing the core problem: the fact that health care is simply NOT supposed to be among the government's duties. Ideally, the government must provide police, military forces, a legal system -- and anything else must be run privately.

what's medicare and medicade then?
preventive care for everyone is in everyone's best intrest, whether you want it or not. because we will still save you, and it's cheaper if we catch it early. this will cut down costs and eliminate the "pre-existing conditions" rules.

[antron]

I for one like the fact that if I do not agree with my primary doctor's course of treatment I am able to seek a second opinion. Within this plan there is no allowance for that.

please provide a reference for this.

[Acid King]

you stated earlier that you do not have insurance.

You must not be able to read, because no where did I say that I didn't have insurance.

[antron]

The goal should be to bring costs down to the point where someone who doesn't have insurance can afford to pay a doctor out of pocket for a consultation when they get sick and potentially buy cheap, higher deductible insurance for when something goes horribly wrong. Without doing that, all that's going to happen is costs shifting from one entity to the other and the cost continues to climb.

sorry, you were defending the idea. change 'potentially' to 'have' and you're all good.

[Acid King]

sorry, you were defending the idea. change 'potentially' to 'have' and you're all good.

You're fucking retarded. I said people shouldn't rely on insurance to cover everything, that costs should be brought down so most things could be paid for out of pocket, not that people shouldn't have insurance.

[antron]

sorry, you were defending the idea. change 'potentially' to 'have' and you're all good.

I said people shouldn't rely on insurance to cover everything, that costs should be brought down so most things could be paid for out of pocket, not that people shouldn't have insurance.

so do you think everyone must have it, to cover expensive things?

[Domino]

I have Insurance for my Egret II.

[nikkos010]

I'm gonna trawl back and read all of this thread, because it IS and interesting subject.

For Now;

John Q (2002)
Directed by Nick Cassavetes. With Gabriela Oltean, Denzel Washington, Kimberly Elise. A down-on-his luck father, whose insurance won't cover his son's heart ...

^A copy paste from a film that highlights a problem with the current American system.

A friend of mine emigrated to the US a while back. I told him; "Alright, BUT DON'T GET ILL!!! You can't afford it."

The English Socialist NHS system is indeed abused by immigrants, so there is a problem there, I will admit. No doubt this would be an issue if this system were to be introduced in the US (as pointed out by some of you here).

There a few misconceptions that need clearing up.

1. There are tons of health-care nets for children. Shriners, Ronald McDonald, State welfare plans, etc. I don't know what's it's like in other countries, but money is raised in many ways to help children with problems.

2. Please don't take Hollywood movies as gospel.

3. Health-Care for legal immigrants is available at huge discount if not free for the first few years.

4. German health care is good, but there are calls for reform cause the country can't pay for it: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2117345,00.html


neorich:

I appreciate the polite discussion we're having. It's a breath of fresh air compared to polarized screaming matches that occur more and more often here. I'm a regular on SRK, this is nice and tame

You make a comment about middle class people sipping wine while others are trying to escape shattered windows. I really just don't get that comment. It suggests again that for some reason someone who has done better in life must take care of someone who hasn't. It also makes assumptions upon the "wealth" of the middle class and the "tragicness" of the poor. You must realize that while health care is not universal, there are countless other programs to help the poor - Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Housing Assistance at the Federal level, here in Minnesota we spend additional money on additional welfare, childcare, and healthcare options for the poor. At the community level there are charities and churches. Some may not like this comment, but the people who remain poor in the country are people who have chosen to, either because of drugs and/or unwillingness to work. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

But going back to the assumptions about the middle class. A house in suburbia with a swimming pool in Minnesota would likely cost $200,000. on a 30-year note, with insurance that's about $1300/mo. If we go by the rule that suggests a house should cost no more than 50% of your monthly income, that's $2600 - or 31000/year after taxes. That means the base income required to have just the house is about $55k/year (32k pounds) Now, let's include some necessities

1. Car + Car Insurance - $400/mo
2. Food - ($10/day) 300/mo
3. Gas - ($5/day) 150/mo
4. Utilites
a. Electricity - $100/mo
b. Cable TV/internet $100/mo
c. Water/Sewer/Garbage $50/mo (probably more)
d. Heating - $3000/year average on oil or natural gas, so $250/mo
e. Telephone - $20/mo landline or 40-100/mo Cellphone
5. Property taxes - $150/mo

Total - $1320-$1400
Total with mortgage - $2620-$2700.

Where is the money to help a poor person? Sell the car? Not have internet? Eat less? At 55k/year, 40% is lost to federal taxes (15900) Social Security and Medicare (4200) and state (4000). Plus nearly everything I buy is subject to a 7% sales tax.

[cools]

Necessities?

I don't wish to start a nitpicking argument but those figures are two, sometimes three times the amount of what I'd class as necessary (at least from a UK standpoint). Admittedly you've specified middle class - but there's a clear division between necessity and nicety irrespective of income level.

[Acid King]

so do you think everyone must have it, to cover expensive things?

I don't think it should be forced on people, no. If you don't have insurance you should still be able to go to a doctor and get a check up and afford a prescription. If you get into an accident you're accountable for that though. It's not a good idea to not have some form of insurance, but if you want to take the chance, you foot the bill.

But this whole debate is insane. We hear that health insurance is too expensive, when high deductible insurance is fairly inexpensive. We hear about people without insurance going to emergency rooms for colds, when they should be able to just go to a doctor and pay $50 dollars for an exam and a $10 bottle of antibiotics. Not only that, but the whole pricing structure is against people who don't have insurance or have high deductible insurance that doesn't cover doctors visits or prescriptions. While an insurance company will only pay a percentage of what it costs to treat you, if you don't have insurance you pay the whole thing. That encourages doctors, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals to charge astronomical rates for procedures and drugs because they are only going to ever get a percentage of it back. The whole system is fucked and part of it is because of our reliance on insurance and not paying out of pocket. That's my point. Without addressing the core costs, which are only actually seen when you don't have insurance, giving everyone insurance is going to do fuck all to control costs.

Like I said before, insurance should be used for catastrophic problems and emergencies. We need to start treating health insurance like insurance (Car insurance doesn't cover oil changes or tune ups, homeowners insurance doesn't cover the holes you drunkenly punch in your walls) and focus on bringing costs down so that people, with and without insurance, can afford to pay out of pocket for basic medical care. That should be the goal of healthcare reform, not shitting money down another black hole bureaucratic entitlement program.

[antron]

so do you think everyone must have it, to cover expensive things?

It's not a good idea to not have some form of insurance, but if you want to take the chance, you foot the bill.

the gov. wants it's money up front. it doesn't trust people to foot the bill later.

car insurance is forced in most (if not all) states. they don't trust people either.

[nikkos010]

Necessities?

I don't wish to start a nitpicking argument but those figures are two, sometimes three times the amount of what I'd class as necessary (at least from a UK standpoint). Admittedly you've specified middle class - but there's a clear division between necessity and nicety irrespective of income level.

Which items?

Cable/internet? Thats for basic cable and internet (5meg)

Car? my small mazda's payments were 253.48/mo and insurance $100/mo.

Electricity? My apartment costs me $50/mo winter, $100/mo summer (AC) a house will cost more.

Telephone? $20 for basic landline.

Gas? $5/day is reasonable isn't it?

Food? $10/day isn't reasonable between 3 meals eaten at home?

None of these things are uncommon. Or are you suggesting one who is working for these things should go without in order to pay for someone else who isn't?

[antron]

giving everyone insurance is going to do fuck all to control costs.

thay are not giving. thay are forcing you to buy from any provider you choose. it has been clearly shown that people without insurance get sicker because they put off seeing a doctor. we are sick of paying for their mistakes. doctors will never be cheap here, it's called supply and demand. good ol' capitalism (no sarcasm intended)

[jpj]

i wouldn't say car and cable/internet are a necessity. i know cools doesn't even own a tv (mind you, he is welsh)

i find those costs pretty reasonable, and i think you guys would be shocked at some of the living costs if you were over here in europe to be honest. but then again, your country really needs to raise the minimum wage, which would give scope for some small tax rises, taking some money out of the big companies pockets, and back to the working public. but then again, i guess that might fuel the problem you have with illegal immigrants and cheap labour

i'm not really interested in US politics, but as an outsider looking in, your healthcare and legal systems seem really fucked up. i really sympathise with the lower-class people who are struggling. the current system only seems to benefit insurance and pharmaceutical companies

undamned: i had the unlucky odds of having a urinary tract and appendicitus at the same time (which have near enough the same symptoms). when i went to the doctor, they found traces of blood in my urine which ruled out an intestine problem, so they prescribed me antibiotics for the small tear in my kidney. all seemed well until 2 weeks later when i had some pains in my stomach, and i just thought i was being a pussy and didn't do anything about it. after 24 hours of vomitting everywhere and in a lot of pain, i called out an emergency doctor only to be told my appendix had ruptured the previous day and various family members and family friends have needed cancer treatment, or emergency operations. i have no problem paying my taxes even if i rarely ever get ill, because at least i'm secure in the knowledge that if something does go wrong i'll get the treatment i need - and without the crippling financial costs

and i agree with D - healthcare should be a basic right

[Domino]

and i agree with D - healthcare should be a basic right

LOL, like the internet?

[antron]

i have no problem paying my taxes even if i rarely ever get ill, because at least i'm secure in the knowledge that if something does go wrong i'll get the treatment i need - and without the crippling financial costs

this is all I want. if I lose my job I lose my insurance, and I cannot buy on the market b/c of pre-existing conditions. right now the insurance companies run this way to punish people who didn't buy before they got sick (you know, the non-insured). making everyone get coverage is the only answer.

[Domino]

this is all I want. if I lose my job I lose my insurance, and I cannot buy on the market b/c of pre-existing conditions. right now the insurance companies run this way to punish people who didn't buy before they got sick (you know, the non-insured). making everyone get coverage is the only answer.

Forcing people won't do shit.

[jpj]

what i mean is that if everyone is paying into some kind of system - whether that be tax, or insurance - everyone should be covered for any and all eventualities. then the people who need help the most will have that, at a reasonable price, and if you don't get ill, then good for you.

i think what antron is saying is very sensible. whether that's done through a tax and NHS system, or by requiring everyone to have insurance is a bit tricky. i think on the one hand, insurance would be more competitive and work out cheaper - but would be difficult to enforce, and you would probably end up with 101 different types of policies that cover for different things. tax would not be as competitive, but at least it's even across the board.

(nobody wants to comment on that "poor people choose to be poor" remark? )

[antron]

this is all I want. if I lose my job I lose my insurance, and I cannot buy on the market b/c of pre-existing conditions. right now the insurance companies run this way to punish people who didn't buy before they got sick (you know, the non-insured). making everyone get coverage is the only answer.

Forcing people won't do shit.

it will eliminate pre-existing condition denials. the deal with insurance companies is already worked out.

also:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/ ... 5280.shtml

The average family with health insurance shells out an extra $1,000 a year in premiums to pay for health care for the uninsured, a new report finds.

[BulletMagnet]

Ok I'll stop. IMO Obama is the Democrat George Bush, doesn't know what the hell he's talking about most of the time. After all he needs to bring his teleprompter wherever he goes.

I've got my grievances with the guy, but he's in no way the second coming of W - if nothing else at least he's moved beyond the "government shouldn't do anything except bomb people and make the super-rich super-richer" mindset. And honestly, the "teleprompter" crap is almost as bad as the "Al Gore has the wrong number of buttons on his suit" garbage from the 2000 election - even if Obama DID make more frequent use of scripts and notes than his predecessor (which, frankly, shouldn't even be necessary, as he's ten times the public speaker Bush was), I'd still much prefer that to the "I let Jesus and my gut tell me what to do" philosophy we've all had to put up with for far too long.

And are you saying that left-wing propaganda is any better?

First off, this is a non-answer; second, when the left lies it lies, just like the right, but sorry, nobody on the left has come up with anything so bat-guano insane as the "death panels" crap in a long time, and moreover, even the nutty stuff that HAS come out was NEVER embraced by the elected leadership and trumpeted repeatedly in Congress. So yeah, even on that irrelevant point you still lose.

Simple my friend: The US and A is broke. Democrats are spending left and right on stupid BS programs like cash for clunkers that we can't afford anything else.

Were you this up in arms against out-of-control spending back when, say, Bush was fighting two wars and cutting taxes for the rich at the same time? What were your feelings when Cheney asserted that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter?" For some reason, even though three quarters of the current deficit can be laid directly on the shoulders of Reagan and the two Bushes, I only EVER hear outrage over "spending money we don't have" when a liberal is slated with a huge deficit courtesy of a "fiscal conservative," and has no choice BUT to spend further to get the economy going again, and hopefully make back the investment in the long term, as opposed to insisting on building more outdated jet fighters that even the army doesn't want.

And IMO it won't be for the better, it would make the government go into the lives of more people which as a Libertarian (MEEEE!) that's a big no-no.

News flash - NOBODY wants the government involved in ANYthing if it doesn't need to be, liberals included. The difference between you and them however, is that others are willing to give the government a shot at things that the private sector has failed miserably (and oftentimes repeatedly) to provide adequately (and moreover fights tooth and nail to tilt things ever further in its favor, at the expense of consumers), instead of sticking stubbornly to the overwrought principle of "government is ALWAYS bad", when the alternative is clearly worse. Seriously, if the insurance companies are so completely convinced that the government always runs things inefficiently and will be spurned by the populace as a result, why do they also insist that if a public insurance option (repeat: option, as in, you have a choice as to whether or not to enroll) is included in the reform bill that they won't be able to compete with it? Which is it, fellas?

LOL, like the internet?

What the hell kind of response is that? Who other than you is comparing the health of the populace to internet access?

[Domino]

I've got my grievances with the guy, but he's in no way the second coming of W - if nothing else at least he's moved beyond the "government shouldn't do anything except bomb people and make the super-rich super-richer" mindset. And honestly, the "teleprompter" crap is almost as bad as the "Al Gore has the wrong number of buttons on his suit" garbage from the 2000 election - even if Obama DID make more frequent use of scripts and notes than his predecessor (which, frankly, shouldn't even be necessary, as he's ten times the public speaker Bush was), I'd still much prefer that to the "I let Jesus and my gut tell me what to do" philosophy we've all had to put up with for far too long.

Well whatever he's doing his approval rating is going downhill. I don't care if he uses his mind or Jesus IMO most of his policy are full of shit. If this is what you call "Change" then I'll call it bankrupting this country for stupid shit we CAN'T AFFORD!

First off, this is a non-answer; second, when the left lies it lies, just like the right, but sorry, nobody on the left has come up with anything so bat-guano insane as the "death panels" crap in a long time, and moreover, even the nutty stuff that HAS come out was NEVER embraced by the elected leadership and trumpeted repeatedly in Congress. So yeah, even on that irrelevant point you still lose.

MMMM, Global Warming? OOOOOO I like this moment of lulz:

http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservat ... -she-flies

Were you this up in arms against out-of-control spending back when, say, Bush was fighting two wars and cutting taxes for the rich at the same time? What were your feelings when Cheney asserted that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter?" For some reason, even though three quarters of the current deficit can be laid directly on the shoulders of Reagan and the two Bushes, I only EVER hear outrage over "spending money we don't have" when a liberal is slated with a huge deficit courtesy of a "fiscal conservative," and has no choice BUT to spend further to get the economy going again, and hopefully make back the investment in the long term, as opposed to insisting on building more outdated jet fighters that even the army doesn't want.

I was bitching back then. I don't even like the right and I didn't even agree on many things Bush did (spending policies included).

News flash - NOBODY wants the government involved in ANYthing if it doesn't need to be, liberals included. The difference between you and them however, is that others are willing to give the government a shot at things that the private sector has failed miserably (and oftentimes repeatedly) to provide adequately (and moreover fights tooth and nail to tilt things ever further in its favor, at the expense of consumers), instead of sticking stubbornly to the overwrought principle of "government is ALWAYS bad", when the alternative is clearly worse. Seriously, if the insurance companies are so completely convinced that the government always runs things inefficiently and will be spurned by the populace as a result, why do they also insist that if a public insurance option (repeat: option, as in, you have a choice as to whether or not to enroll) is included in the reform bill that they won't be able to compete with it? Which is it, fellas?

And for the people who are willing to give the government a shot on anything needs to check how many times the government can't run shit in past history.

What the hell kind of response is that? Who other than you is comparing the health of the populace to internet access?

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol ... 478542.ece

The Internet a basic human right, lulz. To the guy who also said that Heathcare is a basic human right, lulz.


Anyway it doesn't look like that we're going to be agreeing on anything anytime soon. I'm going to save you the trouble and won't be posting in this topic anymore. Don't even attempt to reply to me since you'll be wasting your energy and won't be changing my viewpoints anytime soon.

[BulletMagnet]

I'm going to save you the trouble and won't be posting in this topic anymore.

If that's what you want then obviously I can't make you continue to discuss anything, though if you count yourself among the "most of the global scientific community is in on a huge liberal global warming conspiracy" and "I'll just ignore the fact that most other civilized nations have voluntarily chosen to stick with government-run healthcare for decades" camp, you're pretty much certainly right when you state that nothing anyone says is likely to change your mind. The situation strikes me like the guys at the "town hall" meetings who, after the congressperson tells them flat-out that "there's no 'death panel' provision in this bill, and you won't be forced to change doctors or sign up for a government plan", immediately screams "You're lying! All you liberals are liars, all the time!" and goes right back to shouting slogans - he's not interested in discussing or learning anything, he just wants the conversation stopped dead in its tracks. I can't recall the last time I ever saw a liberal, from rinky-dink internet forums to the halls of Congress, choose the "Shut up, I'm taking my ball and going home" route, but in any case, it's your choice.