Universal health care.

[stuckathuntermtn]

What exactly are you recieving for all of those taxes?

Bullets for Iraq?
Oh, btw "I before E except after C"

[stuckathuntermtn]

Coming from a country where UHC is a fact and taken for granted, i believe the idea of the opposite - whatever you may call it - is utterly retarded. The notion that some people cannot afford heath care is madness in my eyes and every person has the right to be treated if injured or ill.

What's so hard to understand about the fact that I make $9/hr and can't afford it so my mom (who can barely afford it) pays for it, because I need a very expensive drug.
If you'd like, I could stay poor and destitute and your tax dollars could pay for it while I collect disability and mooch off the system.

[MeatPuppet]

I hope you don't get into a car accident, I hope you aren't in a location where an earthquake or other natural disaster occurs, or live in an area where unbeknownst to you has some environmental hazards, etc that end up seriously fucking up your health.

Just because I've never been in a car accident doesn't mean I drive around without insurance. A similar case can be made about health insurance.

Just because no one in your family has died cancer, diabetes, been in the ICU for extended periods of time, etc doesn't mean that it couldn't happen to you. Similarly just because others in your family tend to live a long time doesn't mean you will. The fact is that if you get into an accident or something tragic happens to you that lands you in the hospital for extended periods of time there's a good chance you will become bankrupt because of it and this could in turn bankrupt your family by them trying to support you.

You are stating a bunch of things that are obvious. Are you making an argument? If so, I'm sorry I'm missing the point.

Basically you will be that strain on the healthcare system that bothers you so much.

The health care system we have doesn't bother me, although there is a lot of room for improvment. The idea of our wonderfully wise and efficient, federal government making health care decisions for everyone, does.

[PNWbrit]

Your talents would be more appreciated here.

How about a gala evening specially for you?

Double bill of "Death and the Maiden" and "Diary of Anne Frank".

We'll need someone to play a torturer confronted by his victim and a jack booted thug kicking down the door of the family in hiding - I'll send you your lines by PM.

[Adolf Allerbush]

You are stating a bunch of things that are obvious. Are you making an argument? If so, I'm sorry I'm missing the point.



The health care system we have doesn't bother me, although there is a lot of room for improvment. The idea of our wonderfully wise and efficient, federal government making health care decisions for everyone, does.

I guess I missed the point of your argument as well then. You wrote that you didn’t' have insurance for a variety of reasons. I simply stated some obvious reasons why you might want to consider insurance.

I definitely don't think the federal government is efficient but I'm struggling to think of a system of national healthcare in the U.S. without the federal government involved. If it's a purely state driven healthcare system how does that translate between states? There's a multitude of issues with any system. It's just hard to wrap your head around the right solution. I guess ultimately my arguement is that a national healthcare system would need the federal government involved.

[uglymoney]

No, just very pragmatic. I am (relatively)young, healthy, keep myself in shape, come from a family with several centenarians in it and have no family history of non-lifestyle related diseases. I also live in a country where I knew that if I were mangled in a car accident I wasn't going to die because I didn't have insurance, or a trust fund. It was a calculated risk.

Funny but I'm very pragmatic, relatively young, healthy, keep myself in shape, come from a family where everybody lives to be very old and tend to die of old age. I also live in the same country as you. I know that if I were mangled in a car accident I'd have my insurance pay for services rendered, rather than my neighbors. Its a calculated decision I've made to not place my risk in the hands of my fellow American citizens. Certainly I'd love to spend the money on myself, or invest it in a business that could make me rich someday (ie young Limbaugh Republicans - there all going to be rich someday ), and lay the risk on you all, but I'm not like that I guess.

I'm constantly amazed at how a person like you, and a person like myself managed to grow up in the same country, at about the same time, yet we view (most) things with complete polarity.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Funny but I'm very pragmatic, relatively young, healthy, keep myself in shape, come from a family where everybody lives to be very old and tend to die of old age. I also live in the same country as you. I know that if I were mangled in a car accident I'd have my insurance pay for services rendered, rather than my neighbors. Its a calculated decision I've made to not place my risk in the hands of my fellow American citizens. Certainly I'd love to spend the money on myself, or invest it in a business that could make me rich someday (ie young Limbaugh Republicans - there all going to be rich someday ), and lay the risk on you all, but I'm not like that I guess.

I'm constantly amazed at how a person like you, and a person like myself managed to grow up in the same country, at about the same time, yet we view (most) things with complete polarity.

That's what struck me about MP's statements on healthcare. To relate it to skiing...I don't think I'd ski as aggressively as I do if I didn't have insurance. I just wouldnt' want to even venture onto a mountain knowing that if I blow my knee out, break my leg/neck/back, etc I'd have to come up with the coin or I'd just be a burden on the system. All this because I knew that I wouldn't be left high and dry because of a system that I find flawed. Doesn't make any sense to me.

[doughboyshredder]

What I really don't get is this:

After almost 8 years of watching the Bush administration make mincemeat out of our constitution, our civil rights, and our international standing, the Dem's decide to run on a platform of providing national health care.

Really, WTF?

Abolish the patriot act, get us the fuck out of Iraq, stop marching us down a path of war with Iran, based on lies, lies, and more lies, balance the fucking budget, and then lets talk about national health care.

4 pages of arguing about national health care, while Bush is out there still trying to paint a picture of a nuclear armed Iran that must be dealt with. Nonsense, and the Dems are playing right along with it.

[Grange]

Grange: Sorry about the red quotes. I need to figure out how to work the quote options.

"By using the word clogged your leading the reader to believe ER's have more non-insured patients that are illegal immigrants than US citizens."

In my orginal post I lumped together indigents and illegals. But, depending on the geographical location, it is a true stmt. When was the last time you went to the ER at St. Anthony Hospital in Denver, CO?


"You single out illegal immigrants, when plenty of US citizens do the same damn thing."

I haven't singled out illegals. See above response.

"Again you're leading the reader to believe all US citizens without health insurance are covered under Medicade and primary care physicians. If that's the case then we already have Universal Health Care. Why do I pay for my health insurance when I could just use Medicade. Also please inform my insurance company when they raise my rates again."

Literally, primary care physicians do not "cover patients", they treat them. You are correct about already having an Universal Health care system of sorts, but it is only available to the poor and elderly. The rest of us need to pay for our insurance coverage one way or the other. So if you want to quit your job and file for medicaid coverage, good luck. Plus medicaid's reimbursement is pathetic. It is one of the reasons why our insurance is so expensive. Hospital administrators spend alot of money on lobbyist to capture larger reimbursements from private and commercial carriers to make up for the indigent care and terrible medicaid and medicare reimbursement.

"How are they directly affecting our quality of care?"

Because they are causing congestion in our ER which are suppose to be dedicated serious trauma and very sick patients.

I am not a fan of O'Reilly. Immigration is a huge buzz word, obviously. Their effect on Health Care is one of the reasons why. The single biggest compliant about our healthcare system is the cost. The illegals and indigents are just one of many reasons why our coverage is so expensive.

Universial/Nationalized health care is not an option in America. We are too demanding and expect immediate attention when we are sick/injured and it doesn't necessarly make it less expensive.

I wasn't talking about your original post. I was talking about about your attempt to put the original post in context. I thought that was clear from what I quoted.

Read your second post you sure did a good job at singling out illegal immigrants.

What is the definition of poor as far as Medicade and Medicare is concerned? If you live in an area with a very high cost of living buying your own health insurance may not be feasible, but you may still not qualify for Medicade or Medicare.

There is always going to be congestion in ER's. You could take out every illegal in this country and you'll still wait in the ER.

[doughboyshredder]

What's so hard to understand about the fact that I make $9/hr and can't afford it so my mom (who can barely afford it) pays for it, because I need a very expensive drug.
If you'd like, I could stay poor and destitute and your tax dollars could pay for it while I collect disability and mooch off the system.

Get a better job.

Don't you work at a fucking ski area?

Dude, you are a ski bum and making your mom pay for your drugs. Get a better job, and take care of yourself.

[BLOOD SWEAT STEEL]

......Brought to you by the same EXACT people who ruined social security, threw it in the gutter, and walked away from it and left it to rot.

Which we're still forced to pay.

And most likely will never see a dime of.

I'm so sick of this entitlement-minded voter fueled welfare expansion. It's just disgusting. I guess this is just what happens when politicians get bored and want a new toy to play with to secure votes. Support universal healthcare? Seriously, are you guys NUTS??

[Tourette Dude]

......Brought to you by the same EXACT people who ruined social security, threw it in the gutter, and walked away from it and left it to rot.

Which we're still forced to pay.

And most likely will never see a dime of.

I'm so sick of this entitlement-minded voter fueled welfare expansion. It's just disgusting. I guess this is just what happens when politicians get bored and want a new toy to play with to secure votes. Support universal healthcare? Seriously, are you guys NUTS??

No.
Nuts is attempting to maintain a crumbling/inefficient system where 30-40 million people are uninsured at any one time and many more millions are underinsured.
There are many private/public systems around the world that provide access to everyone and have better outcomes acrsos the board--mortality/morbidity, infant mortality, immuniztion rate, longterm prevention/management of chronic disease.
The topic is far too complex than to just discount by saying that government prgrams are inefficient. Its not an black and white issue.
Everyone seems to forget about the money you don't see in your paycheck that goes to your health benefits, like 4-8 thousand dollars worth , a large percentage of which goes to non-health care related expenses(ie management, billing,profit etc.)

[pheenster]

Under the Canadian system, my mother in law waited over 2 yrs before getting a knee replacement that was considered elective. During that time she ended up favoring her good knee so much that its now completely fucked too. The doctor's only solution is to prescribe her pain killers while she waits for the other knee replacement.

I live in Canada because my wife is a Canadian citizen and despite what Michael Moore says in Sicko, that doesn't get you free health care up here. Immigrants (regardless of spousal sponsorship) are denied Provincial health care while waiting for permanent resident visas to process. Fair enough I thought. I don't typically go to the doctor, so I bought the private travel insurance policy Immigration Canada suggests to cover for any accidents.

I had the misfortune of breaking my neck during this time and spent 10 hrs in the ER waiting room before I was admitted because we had to pay a bond upfront to show proof of payment as the private insurance we had purchased was not accepted. The hospital administrator strongly urged my wife to have me sent to WA because if it got too expensive and I had no proof of payment, I would be asked to leave the hospital. We had to put the whole thing on a credit card and were never reimbursed by the private insurance because I was considered a "resident" of Canada thereby nullifying the insurance policy immigration Canada urges all applicants to get.

Despite what most Canadians will argue to death, the system here has serious limitations mostly due to lack of doctors and nurses who head south for better pay. The ER is clogged with people looking for someone to blow their nose for them or homeless drug addicts looking for a place to crash while they come down. The waiting lists for people with serious ailments that are deemed "elective" leave people no other choice than to take pain killers.

Canada should allow private health insurance for those who want it. Whats the harm?

I'm a born and bred Canuck, and I agree with you 100%. Of course in this country this makes me a dangerous neo-con who wants to undermine a precious Canadian birthright, and I should just move to the States if I like their horrible broken healthcare system so much.

As you've no doubt realized living here for a while, Canadians think their health care system is the best in the world. It's not even close to that. It is admirable in its objectives, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. That said, medical care doesn't in most cases cause bankruptcy in this country.

I shudder to think what the credit card bill must have looked like. It sounds to me like you got a raw deal there; how could your term insurance not cover you as a resident?

[BLOOD SWEAT STEEL]

No.
Nuts is attempting to maintain a crumbling/inefficient system where 30-40 million people are uninsured at any one time and many more millions are underinsured.
There are many private/public systems around the world that provide access to everyone and have better outcomes acrsos the board--mortality/morbidity, infant mortality, immuniztion rate, longterm prevention/management of chronic disease.
The topic is far too complex than to just discount by saying that government programs are inefficient. Its not an black and white issue.
Everyone seems to forget about the money you don't see in your paycheck that goes to your health benefits, like 4-8 thousand dollars worth , a large percentage of which goes to non-health care related expenses(ie management, billing,profit etc.)

I disagree. Nuts is turning a blind eye to a system (albeit, broken) already in place and piling on evan more layers of taxation and bureaucratic infinity. You address the root issues (many of which have been discussed in this thread) and fix it from the ground up. We have a program for prople who truly can not afford insurance already. Is it broken? No. As for those who choose not to have it, well truthfully - best of luck to them. I don't care. I'm not going to force you to pay for my doctor visits any more than I'm willing to pay for yours. Is my logic flawed? Do I owe the "millions of uninsured/underinsured" something? My "fellow man," you say? I say get a job. Go to school and get a better job. Charity begins at home.

If your car has a flat tire, do you part it out, leave it on blocks in your neighbor's front yard, and go finance a brand new one (that you can't afford?) No. You fix it.

National healthcare = just another clever excuse for legislators to get their arms even deeper into your pockets. And you LOVE them for it! I wonder what happens when.... OOpsy, medical costs are going up..... Guess what? Taxes are going up. Again, again, and again. There's no going back. Once you willingly place your state of health and your family's well being solely in the hands of the government, the sky's the limit.

[Tourette Dude]

QUOTE pheenster:

"That said, medical care doesn't in most cases cause bankruptcy in this country.

I shudder to think what the credit card bill must have looked like. It sounds to me like you got a raw deal there; how could your term insurance not cover you as a resident?"



Approximately 40-50% of personal bankruptcy in the US is due to medical cost/issues

[MeatPuppet]

I simply stated some obvious reasons why you might want to consider insurance.

Ahh, gottcha. All of those are/were things that were on my mind every time I found myself with the means to afford insurance and chose not to. What was also on my mind is that insurance only exist's because most people will pay more into it than they take out of it. So I choose to save, and invest, my money rather than give it to an insurance company on the off chance I needed more than I had saved. As I said, it was a calculated risk. One that many people I know have made as well. Yet we all get lumped into the "uninsured" category and used as political props to promote an agenda that I don't agree with.

I definitely don't think the federal government is efficient but I'm struggling to think of a system of national healthcare in the U.S. without the federal government involved.

We already have medicare and medicade. If the income requirements need to be adjusted to cover those who can't afford insurance, why not do it? If the coverage needs to me expanded, why not do it? I definitely don't think the government should pay for something that people are capable of taking care of themselves.

I also live in the same country as you. I know that if I were mangled in a car accident I'd have my insurance pay for services rendered, rather than my neighbors. Its a calculated decision I've made to not place my risk in the hands of my fellow American citizens.

That's what struck me about MP's statements on healthcare. To relate it to skiing...I don't think I'd ski as aggressively as I do if I didn't have insurance. I just wouldnt' want to even venture onto a mountain knowing that if I blow my knee out, break my leg/neck/back, etc I'd have to come up with the coin or I'd just be a burden on the system. All this because I knew that I wouldn't be left high and dry because of a system that I find flawed. Doesn't make any sense to me.

What both of you guys seem to be missing is that the only way you are a burden on the system, and your neighbor, is if you are a deadbeat and don't pay your bills. I have found the medical community to be very accommodating in setting up payments for services rendered. Honestly, I think they are so used to getting shafted that they will bend over backwards to accommodate someone who keeps the lines of communication open and actually makes payments on time.

I'm constantly amazed at how a person like you, and a person like myself managed to grow up in the same country, at about the same time, yet we view (most) things with complete polarity.

I'm constantly amazed by the same thing. It's a mystery.

[Tourette Dude]

I disagree. Nuts is turning a blind eye to a system (albeit, broken) already in place and piling on evan more layers of taxation and bureaucratic infinity. You address the root issues (many of which have been discussed in this thread) and fix it from the ground up. We have a program for prople who truly can not afford insurance already. Is it broken?

It works for those that fall within the income criteria to access it.
Most of theose that don't have insurance in this country are workingand are not given benefits. They then delay treatment of chronic disease conditions until they end up in the hospital with an acute event which causes the entire system to absorb much higher costs(IE both higher taxes AND personal insurance costs.

No. As for those who choose not to have it, well truthfully - best of luck to them. I don't care. I'm not going to force you to pay for my doctor visits any more than I'm willing to pay for yours. Is my logic flawed?

We do end up paying for it though. The costs is just spread out to the rest of us. higher CT scan costs, higher lab test cost, higher surgical costs......

Do I owe the "millions of uninsured/underinsured" something? My "fellow man," you say? I say get a job. Go to school and get a better job. Charity begins at home.

Most people that are uninsured and underinsured ARE working as are most of the poor.
It goes back to that ever so wondreful thing called globalization and moving jobs to countries without labor laws and benefits.

If your car has a flat tire, do you part it out, leave it on blocks in your neighbor's front yard, and go finance a brand new one (that you can't afford?) No. You fix it.

National healthcare = just another clever excuse for legislators to get their arms even deeper into your pockets. And you LOVE them for it! I wonder what happens when.... OOpsy, medical costs are going up..... Guess what? Taxes are going up. Again, again, and again. There's no going back. Once you willingly place your state of health and your family's well being solely in the hands of the government, the sky's the limit.

Why do many counties around the world spend less percapita as a percent of GDP but have better outcome. It doesn't need to be either/or.
There are european models that function as a private/public systems and have better outcomes for LESS cost.
http://www.everybodyinnobodyout.org/FAQ/fqIntl.htm

I'll try to find the site with the cost stats.

I'm am not saying that is wise to completely scrap our current system. But I Know that the one we have now is collapsing under the burden of costs. Something needs to be changed. (check out my post on the previous page as to how being uninsured leads to much higher costs than need be.)

[Burrrr]

I wasn't talking about your original post. I was talking about about your attempt to put the original post in context. I thought that was clear from what I quoted.

Read your second post you sure did a good job at singling out illegal immigrants.

What is the definition of poor as far as Medicade and Medicare is concerned? If you live in an area with a very high cost of living buying your own health insurance may not be feasible, but you may still not qualify for Medicade or Medicare.

There is always going to be congestion in ER's. You could take out every illegal in this country and you'll still wait in the ER.

My second post was solely in response to the comment that all republicans focus on the illegal immigration as the root to all the worlds problems, which has very little weight in the discussion we are currently having. It is a generalization that is as old as the "liberal media" comment I made as a rebuttal. Which obviously makes your hair crawl. Would it have made a difference if I just stated "the Media", instead of "liberal media". My point would still be the same.

How did my second post single out illegals, they were not even mentioned?!

Your stmt about the ER still being congested without illegals is baseless. Just convienent for something your trying to prove, which I'm still trying to figure out.

What is your point?

Medicare has nothing to do with the poor, it is for people over the age of 65. Medicaid is really the "welfare" of healthcare coverage.

I'm also scratching my head on your stmt about areas with higher cost of living. If you work in Los Gatos, CA and you can't afford health insurance, how is that any different than if you work in Fresno, CA and can't afford health insurance. And how does that have any influence on whether or not you qualify for medicaid?

[MeatPuppet]

Your stmt about the ER still being congested without illegals is baseless. Just convienent for something your trying to prove, which I'm still trying to figure out.

Since this subject keeps coming up, I thought this might be relevant.

"Since 1996, more than 70 community hospitals have closed across the state, with a disproportionate share -- more than 50 -- in Southern California. Regionally, 14 emergency rooms have closed in the last five years, including 10 in Los Angeles County."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...la-home-center


Maybe the hospitals in the southern part of the state have higher utility bills, being closer to the equator and all...or maybe there is another reason for their closing.

[philippeR]

Ihttp://www.everybodyinnobodyout.org/FAQ/fqIntl.htm

Interesting link.

[Spats]

I guess this is just what happens when politicians get bored and want a new toy to play with to secure votes. Support universal healthcare? Seriously, are you guys NUTS??

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

The problem is that we already have socialized medicine. It's called the emergency room. By law they have to treat everyone who comes in regardless of ability to pay. That's socialism.

The result is that those of us who can pay end up paying for those who can't, insurance goes up to compensate, less people can afford insurance, more people can't pay, and the vicious cycle continues.

There are two possible solutions.

We can allow fully private medicine, where hospitals can choose not to admit those who cannot pay, and care for those who can't pay is dependent on charity hospitals funded by charities and/or the government. Or, we can have fully socialized medicine, where everyone is guaranteed some standard of care.

Either one works, either has its advantages and disadvantages depending on how much money you want to spend taking care of other people. However, our current half-socialized system is broken, and delivers the least actualy health care per dollar spent of any First World nation.

[Tippster]

What if the nearest charity hospital is hundreds of miles away? The reason why all emergency rooms are required to attend to all patients, regardless of insurance status, is because a few years ago they weren't and people were dying on the way across town to the Poor People Hospital.

It's silly saying that a Public/private nonprofit partnership would not help the healthcare industry. What's the difference between paying money to an Insurance Company or into a not-for-profit healthcare fund? I'll tell you: No wealthy stockholders getting dividends.

The Horror.

I seem to see a line item tax on my paychecks marked "Medicare/Medicaid." Not so free now, is it. Lets take that amount and 50% of my current medical insurance rate and put it into a general fund instead of giving it to Allstate. Then let's use that money to pay for our Family Doctor and my wife's OB-Gyn. I'll take 20% and buy supplemental emergency care insurance in case we break ourselves. Anything above and beyond I pay for using Meatpuppet's method - get it done then pay it off. This still saves me money in the long term, and I bet the bodies wouldn't be piling up in the streets.

The only way we're ever going to overhaul the medical system here in the US is by starting w/Tort reform. My doc is also a buddy of mine - his malpractice insurance premiums take up a disgustingly huge chunk of his practice's gross income. Maybe if we can keep the litigious assholes from trying to hit the jackpot his costs go down and the savings get passed on to us.

[Grange]

We already have medicare and medicade. If the income requirements need to be adjusted to cover those who can't afford insurance, why not do it? If the coverage needs to me expanded, why not do it? I definitely don't think the government should pay for something that people are capable of taking care of themselves.

Isn't that in part what SCHIP is trying to do? The President vetoed it and the Republicans in the House will sustain the veto.

My second post was solely in response to the comment that all republicans focus on the illegal immigration as the root to all the worlds problems, which has very little weight in the discussion we are currently having. It is a generalization that is as old as the "liberal media" comment I made as a rebuttal. Which obviously makes your hair crawl. Would it have made a difference if I just stated "the Media", instead of "liberal media". My point would still be the same.

First of all I said it is at the root not it is the root. In otherwords when the issue is boiled down illegal immigration is always one of the leftovers. Please try quote me correctly.

Republicans will use illegal immigration as a reason or excuse with all US problems. You original response is a perfect example.

How did my second post single out illegals, they were not even mentioned?!

You got me. It was your third post.

Your stmt about the ER still being congested without illegals is baseless. Just convienent for something your trying to prove, which I'm still trying to figure out.

It is not baseless. I went to the ER earlier this year and had to wait. There were no illegal immigrants ahead of me. There was a mom with her young child and and retiree.

What is your point?

My point is illegal imigration is not the main reason ER's are crowded.

Medicare has nothing to do with the poor, it is for people over the age of 65. Medicaid is really the "welfare" of healthcare coverage.

And for poor people over 65?

I'm also scratching my head on your stmt about areas with higher cost of living. If you work in Los Gatos, CA and you can't afford health insurance, how is that any different than if you work in Fresno, CA and can't afford health insurance. And how does that have any influence on whether or not you qualify for medicaid?

Medicaid uses income as part of the qualifications. So a person living in high cost of living area can make more money, but doens't have any more disposable income that a person making less in a low cost of living area. Yet the person living in the low cost of living area qualifies for Medicaid while the other person may not qualify.

Listen to some of the debates about SCHIP. That is what I was trying to get at.


Finally for quotes you can highlight the section you specifically want to discuss and click on the quote icon (tiny dialogue bubble) near the top of the post page.

[Burrrr]

My point is illegal imigration is not the main reason ER's are crowded.

Maybe at your local hospital, which is where?

It is not baseless. I went to the ER earlier this year and had to wait. There were no illegal immigrants ahead of me. There was a mom with her young child and and retiree.

No illegal immigrants, just a retiree, mom and child. 3 people doesn't sound like a crowded ER to me. Hummmmmmmmm.

Finally for quotes you can highlight the section you specifically want to discuss and click on the quote icon (tiny dialogue bubble) near the top of the post page.

Thanks you

[Grange]

Last ER I was in was in Green Bay. Smaller city, but we have a large illegal immigrant population. Mostly due to the meat packing factories and food processing factories.

No it wasn't crowded, but yet I still had to wait quite a while which shows that even without crowds you can have a long wait. Thus something else was causing the delay. Maybe there was a really good episode of Grey's Anatomy on TV. Another reason to hate that show.