"Obamacare" - The USA Hard Right vs. the NHS

Somath Cegem wrote:

You know what amuses me? All that money the American government spends on nuclear armament programmes, those billions of dollars a year? Just 4-5% of that would pay for National Heath of an equal or higher standard for the entirety of America.
Besides England and Canada do it and we're still around, what the hell is Americas excuse?

How many times are you people going to ask questions that can only be answered with "REPUBLICANS?"

"AMERICA DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE! CHANGE SYMBOLISES IMPERFECTION AND WE REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT WE CAN BETTER OURSELVES! WE ARE A MODEL OF PURITY FOR THE WORLD!!!"

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

if America gets free healthcare, suddenly all those doctors are going to lose their jobs and Health Insurance Companies will go bankrupt. .

Because there are so few doctors in Britain* and France. And no private health companies. /sarcasm

* Though it is true that British doctors tend to be paid less than in the US. Don't get me wrong, they're well paid compared to most British people, just not as well, on the whole, as they would be if they were in the USA.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

"WE ARE A MODEL OF PURITY FOR THE WORLD!!!"

"The City on the Hill."

-Thomas Aquinas, by way of Ronald Reagan.

Lexin wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

if America gets free healthcare, suddenly all those doctors are going to lose their jobs and Health Insurance Companies will go bankrupt. .

Because there are so few doctors in Britain* and France. And no private health companies. /sarcasm

* Though it is true that British doctors tend to be paid less than in the US. Don't get me wrong, they're well paid compared to most British people, just not as well, on the whole, as they would be if they were in the USA.

American doctors have to pay off their ridiculously high bills from medical school years after graduating. American doctors might be paid more, but they are still very much broke for the first few years.

Lysander wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

You know what amuses me? All that money the American government spends on nuclear armament programmes, those billions of dollars a year? Just 4-5% of that would pay for National Heath of an equal or higher standard for the entirety of America.
Besides England and Canada do it and we're still around, what the hell is Americas excuse?

How many times are you people going to ask questions that can only be answered with "REPUBLICANS?"

I've heard of those, they're like Conservatives but worse arn't they?

Somath Cegem wrote:

Lysander wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

You know what amuses me? All that money the American government spends on nuclear armament programmes, those billions of dollars a year? Just 4-5% of that would pay for National Heath of an equal or higher standard for the entirety of America.
Besides England and Canada do it and we're still around, what the hell is Americas excuse?

How many times are you people going to ask questions that can only be answered with "REPUBLICANS?"

I've heard of those, they're like Conservatives but worse arn't they?

They are the Conservatives.

theweirdkind wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

Lysander wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

You know what amuses me? All that money the American government spends on nuclear armament programmes, those billions of dollars a year? Just 4-5% of that would pay for National Heath of an equal or higher standard for the entirety of America.
Besides England and Canada do it and we're still around, what the hell is Americas excuse?

How many times are you people going to ask questions that can only be answered with "REPUBLICANS?"

I've heard of those, they're like Conservatives but worse arn't they?

They are the Conservatives.

I think they're kind of like our Conservatives, but with extra "con".

Lexin wrote:

theweirdkind wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

I've heard of those, they're like Conservatives but worse arn't they?

They are the Conservatives.

I think they're kind of like our Conservatives, but with extra "con".

Well done Lexin, Now I'm imagining Decepticonservatives. Don't ask why, just know that you caused it and feel afraid.

DEMOBOTS, TRANSFORM AND REFORM HEALTH CARE!

unskilled78 wrote:

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

Actually, there is.
except, it's over 1 thousand pages of legalese so thick you could cut it with a machete.

Good Luck.

Does that incorporate the comments and changes that have been being discussed?

Quote :

So what's the alternative?

I don't know. I was just stating some of the problems I see with it, and I don't have a solution, which is why I'm not solidly against it.

Quote :

Nice to know I choosed to be denied coverage because of my pre existing conditions.

First, learn how to use proper grammar. Second, if you had read my entire post, you would see that I said that NOT ALL people choose to go without, but a lot of people do, and I feel that makes the commonly-quoted numbers of those without insurance unequal, and I think those people should be allowed to continue to go without insurance and to go without having to pay for a service they have no intention of using, but that if they are injured or ill and need to use it, they should be personally responsible for the costs.

There are a lot of people who don't have insurance for their own reasons that have nothing to do with being denied it or not having the money. It is their choice not to have it.

Quote :

True,
Psy-4. While not everybody CHOOSES to have health care, the percentage
who CHOOSE not to have it are not so huge that they outweigh the lives
of the people who can't afford it.

But as we've discussed, poor people are sub-human and it doesn't matter if they die.

Way to put words in my mouth that are completely unrelated to what I was saying. I believe everyone should be able to access healthcare, and a lot of that problem is the cost, but just because all of those people who want health care cannot get it does not mean people who do not want health care and would prefer to pay for doctor's services on their own should be punished for that.

And I am also not saying that this plan would destroy the health care industry or that there would be no doctors or anything like that. I do have concerns of the effect on medical industry employees salaries and job security. I think that's a valid concern. I have concerns over the plan making private health care companies fall apart (causing more job loss, damage to the economy, etc.) because of requirements to meet the same requirements as the government plan. The government plan can meet whatever they want, after all, they can just inject invisible money (or pull it out of funds like social security, like they do now) into their program, but the private plans will fall apart.
Some people don't want to pay for insurance for things they won't use - for example, I don't want to pay for fertility treatment options because I have my tubes tied and have no intention to ever change that - and it will only contribute to making the lower-middle class and middle class poorer, since they are the ones barely making it as it is, and more taxes will hit them incredibly hard. It will benefit the lower class, and while the upper-middle class and upper class will be hit as well, they are more likely to recover. We could end up making more people poorer, and then there will be less people to contribute taxes to support the system, which could lead to further economic downfall.
Those are the things that worry me, because I don't think it's right to force anyone to take care of anyone else at the expense of their own livelihood, and this has a possibility of doing that if it's done incorrectly. I don't know for sure if it will be done correctly or not, and that's what worries me.

Some of you are jumping to conclusions on what I'm saying or just injecting invisible meanings behind what I'm saying. Lay off, seriously, I was just expressing some concerns. Either correct me with facts or just don't respond like a sarcastic jackass.

I don't know what's worse: T.S.Orr in cop threads or ANC in healthcare threads.

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

First, learn how to use proper grammar. Second, if you had read my entire post, you would see that I said that NOT ALL people choose to go without, but a lot of people do, and I feel that makes the commonly-quoted numbers of those without insurance unequal, and I think those people should be allowed to continue to go without insurance and to go without having to pay for a service they have no intention of using, but that if they are injured or ill and need to use it, they should be personally responsible for the costs.

First, LAWL at using proper grammar. Second, some people like little things like food and shelter. I know they're luxury items, and that money should go to paying outrageous sums of money for insurance which may or may not cover them depending upon the fine print, but there you go. Selfish, horrible people.

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

I have concerns over the plan making private health care companies fall apart (causing more job loss, damage to the economy, etc.) because of requirements to meet the same requirements as the government plan. The government plan can meet whatever they want, after all, they can just inject invisible money (or pull it out of funds like social security, like they do now) into their program, but the private plans will fall apart.

Really? I thought that was the Free Market at work: if you can't keep up with the competition, then fuck you.

HEALTHCARE WILL PUT EVERYONE IN THE POORHOUSE LOLOLOL

OOPS THERE I GO PUTTING WORDS IN HER MOUTH AGAIN

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

I believe everyone should be able to access healthcare, and a lot of that problem is the cost, but just because all of those people who want health care cannot get it does not mean people who do not want health care and would prefer to pay for doctor's services on their own should be punished for that.

ANC, not everybody makes enough money to make hospital bill payments. Sure, there's such a thing as a few hundred dollars for a checkup, but exactly how many people have $50,000 to pay for heart surgery (to name an example)? And even with payment arrangements, the payments are incredibly high. And don't get me started on the cost to treat cancer. Most people won't be able to pay for it, and like I said before, the insurance companies don't even want to pay for costs they say they will. It's terrible either way. Because we don't live in an idyllic world where everyone can magically afford everything and capitalism is a happy magic bullet for salvation.

And don't make me get that eggbeater again

From a 2006 study by the American Medical Association (PDF file):

Quote :

The United States has a considerably greater expenditure on medical care (US $5274 per capita) than in the United Kingdom (US $2164 adjusting for purchasing power).

Quote :

US residents are much less healthy than their English counterparts and these differences exist at all points of the SES distribution ... The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer ... These differences are not solely driven by the bottom of the SES distribution. In many diseases, the top of the SES distribution is less healthy in the United States as well.

In other words, we spend $3,110 more per year per person on health care than our British counterparts...and the outcomes for people at the top of the health care spectrum in the U.S. are no better than for the people at the bottom of the spectrum in the U.K.

This is the system that Republicans in Congress are defending.

Spotts1701 wrote:

From a 2006 study by the American Medical Association (PDF file):

Quote :

The United States has a considerably greater expenditure on medical care (US $5274 per capita) than in the United Kingdom (US $2164 adjusting for purchasing power).

Quote :

US residents are much less healthy than their English counterparts and these differences exist at all points of the SES distribution ... The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer ... These differences are not solely driven by the bottom of the SES distribution. In many diseases, the top of the SES distribution is less healthy in the United States as well.

In other words, we spend $3,110 more per year per person on health care than our British counterparts...and the outcomes for people at the top of the health care spectrum in the U.S. are no better than for the people at the bottom of the spectrum in the U.K.

This is the system that Republicans in Congress are defending.

Yes, but we already know Republicans act like dumbasses.

theweirdkind wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

From a 2006 study by the American Medical Association (PDF file):

Quote :

The United States has a considerably greater expenditure on medical care (US $5274 per capita) than in the United Kingdom (US $2164 adjusting for purchasing power).

Quote :

US residents are much less healthy than their English counterparts and these differences exist at all points of the SES distribution ... The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer ... These differences are not solely driven by the bottom of the SES distribution. In many diseases, the top of the SES distribution is less healthy in the United States as well.

In other words, we spend $3,110 more per year per person on health care than our British counterparts...and the outcomes for people at the top of the health care spectrum in the U.S. are no better than for the people at the bottom of the spectrum in the U.K.

This is the system that Republicans in Congress are defending.

Yes, but we already know Republicans act like dumbasses.

Republicons, I though we had established they were all Giant Evil Transforming Robots?

Maximilia wrote:

First, LAWL at using proper grammar. Second, some people like little things like food and shelter. I know they're luxury items, and that money should go to paying outrageous sums of money for insurance which may or may not cover them depending upon the fine print, but there you go. Selfish, horrible people.

I know, right? How dare those poor people dare choose food and a place to live over their health! It's not that much of a hard decision!

Maximilia wrote:

First, LAWL at using proper grammar. Second, some people like little things like food and shelter. I know they're luxury items, and that money should go to paying outrageous sums of money for insurance which may or may not cover them depending upon the fine print, but there you go. Selfish, horrible people.

At what goddamn point did I say that people should have to pay outrageous sums of money for insurance? I'm saying that people who choose not to have insurance should not have to pay for insurance they don't use, but should have to pay for services they use if they are ill or injured. This has nothing to do with people who need or want it and cannot get it - I think they should have access and that it should be affordable for them. Where the hell are you getting this?

Quote :

ANC, not everybody makes enough money to
make hospital bill payments. Sure, there's such a thing as a few
hundred dollars for a checkup, but exactly how many people have $50,000
to pay for heart surgery (to name an example)? And even with payment
arrangements, the payments are incredibly high. And don't get me
started on the cost to treat cancer. Most people won't
be able to pay for it, and like I said before, the insurance companies
don't even want to pay for costs they say they will. It's terrible
either way. Because we don't live in an idyllic world where everyone
can magically afford everything and capitalism is a happy magic bullet
for salvation.

And don't make me get that eggbeater again

I know that not everyone makes that kind of money, which is why I'm saying that ONLY THE PEOPLE CHOOSING NOT TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE OR WHO DO NOT WANT HEALTHCARE SHOULD BE PAYING THEIR HOSPITAL BILLS DIRECTLY. They make that choice, and they should be allowed to make it. Those who want health care or need health care should be able to get it at the very least for a reasonable amount of money. I pay $130 a month for healthcare, dental, vision, and all life insurances I have for two people, and no one else should be paying more than that, and for no less quality of care than I get (which is pretty damn nice).
My point is that people should not be forced to pay for care if they don't want it and that they should deal with the consequences. That's ALL.

And the eggbeater thing is just stupidly juvenile.

Quote :

Really? I thought that was the Free Market at work: if you can't keep up with the competition, then fuck you.

It's no longer a free market if they're being required to meet government standards and compete against a government "business".

Cyberwulf, I am not saying healthcare will put everyone in the 'poorhouse'. I haven't even said that I don't support this, I am apprehensive about it,because I am worried it will be just as badly managed as what we currently have, only with much more stupid people controlling the system and at risk for destroying thousands of jobs by drowning the health care industry if it is in the wrong hands. I don't think that's a bad thing to be worried about. Considering how much so many of you hate the government here or think they're all stupid, can you really not understand how someone who lives here could be concerned about how they'll handle something so large and so easily mishandled. I can't honestly say I fully support this exact bill because I haven't been able to read it, but I am okay with a large scale government health care plan being initiated so long as it's handled well and not misused.

What am I saying that is wrong? All of these things are legitimate concerns.

Seriously, shut up. You are only digging yourself deeper into a ditch.

A_Note_Chaotic wrote:

Quote :

Really? I thought that was the Free Market at work: if you can't keep up with the competition, then fuck you.

It's no longer a free market if they're being required to meet government standards and compete against a government "business".

UPS and FedEx seem to be doing just fine competing against the US Postal Service.