|
Post by ironbite on Mar 8, 2009 21:11:52 GMT -5
And they still backed off when it was called socialism or "hillarycare." In the case of Hillarycare, it wasn't so much because of "socialism" as it was "people honestly thought that Hillary didn't know what the hell she was doing and so started to panic." Rush actually made the quip that the only thing qualifying Hillary for the task of reforming health care was her marriage to Bill.I highlighted the most important part of your post there Skybuddy. If you had taken that last part out, you probably would've been taken a minute more seriouslly. Instead you show off just how much of a GOP parrot you truely are. Ironbite-not a flame, just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 8, 2009 21:39:54 GMT -5
[It reminds me of this recent Gallup Poll. www.gallup.com/poll/116065/Americans-Views-Bank-Takeovers-Appear-Fluid.aspxConducted Feb. 20-22, 2009 by telephone with 1,013 national adults in a split-samples design with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. One randomly selected half of the sample was asked: " Do you favor or oppose the federal government temporarily taking control of major U.S. banks in danger of failing in an attempt to stabilise them?" : 54% were in favor, 44% opposed and 3% had no opinion. The other half were asked: " Do you favor or oppose the federal government temporarily nationalizing major U.S. banks in danger of failing in an attempt to stabilise them?": 37% were in favor, 57% opposed, 6% had no opinion. I, of course, added the emphasis. Wow. I'm surprised the numbers are so close.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 9, 2009 10:55:30 GMT -5
It reminds me of this recent Gallup Poll. www.gallup.com/poll/116065/Americans-Views-Bank-Takeovers-Appear-Fluid.aspxConducted Feb. 20-22, 2009 by telephone with 1,013 national adults in a split-samples design with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. One randomly selected half of the sample was asked: " Do you favor or oppose the federal government temporarily taking control of major U.S. banks in danger of failing in an attempt to stabilise them?" : 54% were in favor, 44% opposed and 3% had no opinion. The other half were asked: " Do you favor or oppose the federal government temporarily nationalizing major U.S. banks in danger of failing in an attempt to stabilise them?": 37% were in favor, 57% opposed, 6% had no opinion. I, of course, added the emphasis. Not the certain keywords ever make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Mar 9, 2009 21:41:54 GMT -5
The majority of bankruptcies are caused by hospital bills. Of these, 3/4 have health insurance, it's just that the policy won't cover everything. Also, the hospitals can pretty much name their price on individual patients, but insurance companies have the power to negotiate the prices down. Something that costs an individual $20000 might only cost an insurance company $4000. If anything, national health care would eliminate the russian roulette of getting sick, and prevent the uninsured(poorest people) from being charged the highest prices. Universal coverage would also encourage prevention(much cheaper in the long run).
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 9, 2009 21:46:12 GMT -5
Wikipedia says that U.S. health care covers, on average, 46% of health care cost. The U.S. spends more government money, per capita, than any of the other G8 countries. Free enterprise rocks.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Mar 10, 2009 7:18:20 GMT -5
Wikipedia says that U.S. health care covers, on average, 46% of health care cost. The U.S. spends more government money, per capita, than any of the other G8 countries. Free enterprise rocks. It certainly does. Because free enterprise is all about making money. With health care you pretty much have a captive market. What's a sick person supposed to do? Go without? It's not like this is your cable bill or eating at the local Applebee's. It's a great scam.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 10, 2009 8:12:15 GMT -5
Wikipedia says that U.S. health care covers, on average, 46% of health care cost. The U.S. spends more government money, per capita, than any of the other G8 countries. Free enterprise rocks. It certainly does. Because free enterprise is all about making money. With health care you pretty much have a captive market. What's a sick person supposed to do? Go without? It's not like this is your cable bill or eating at the local Applebee's. It's a great scam. I highlighted a part of your post. Yes, I know of sick people who go without. One sad case I know was of an expat who couldn't afford the $800 a month for cardiac drugs for her husband. They were desperate to get back to Scotland but couldn't afford the airfares on american wages. There are mentally ill people in the streets. Disabled vets in the streets. Kids who don't get vaccinations. People do go without. There was an article in the freep I think stating that doctors visits are down a huge chunk since people lost coverage due to unemployment.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 10, 2009 14:38:16 GMT -5
I highlighted a part of your post. Yes, I know of sick people who go without. One sad case I know was of an expat who couldn't afford the $800 a month for cardiac drugs for her husband. They were desperate to get back to Scotland but couldn't afford the airfares on american wages. There are mentally ill people in the streets. Disabled vets in the streets. Kids who don't get vaccinations. People do go without. There was an article in the freep I think stating that doctors visits are down a huge chunk since people lost coverage due to unemployment. My favorite are the disabled vets in the streets. And some of them are also the mental ill. There's just something so amazing about the fact that we've had to listen to the nationalistic chest thumping "support our troops!" Crap for so long, when the stark reality is we don't care for them when they're in the military, and we toss a good chunk of them aside once they leave. It's also disgusting to know children die in a first world country when they could easily be saved. It's unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by clover on Mar 11, 2009 2:36:00 GMT -5
Long time lurker here, finally speaking up. This is one of those matters that's near and dear to my heart. I'm twenty, and a Canadian. I'm also a university student, at a first-tier university--and I just happen to have bone tumors. In the past four years, I have had four surgeries, all of them invasive, all of them relatively major. Every time I get a tumor, I have to have X-Rays, MRIs, bone scans, referrals to specialists, meetings with my GP, meetings with my specialists, meetings with my anaesthesiologists--and that's all before the surgery. The surgery itself is intensive, and generally requires physiotherapy afterwards to regain motion. Not to mention the biopsies to ascertain the tumors were benign.... The most recent surgery I had, this past August, was botched and resulted in anaesthesia awareness---during removal of a chuck of bone. Consequently, psych appointments; once a week for five months to deal with the psychological side-effects. I tell this anecdote just to emphasize how extensive the list of procedures has been.
And despite that huge long list---I pay nothing. My parents (so far as I know) pay nothing, or next to it. I don't have a crushing debt, at twenty years old, because as a Canadian citizen, my health care is provided for. Sure, my taxes are a little higher--and yes, I pay taxes--, and okay, maybe the wait lines are longer (though they certainly move quick enough when they think something's really wrong).. but I can afford to attend school. My parents can afford to retire in a couple years. My siblings will be able to go to University, and not worry about the finances. None of this would be possible if Canada didn't pick up the tab--and because of this, I just don't understand why the US is so determined to keep a system that doesn't really protect anyone. Maybe I'm just idealistic, but I can't understand a society in which people can't even afford to go to the doctor.
And just because I'm curious--does anyone know how much a surgery like mine would have costed in the US? I heard once (I think from a tv show*) that to reset a broken arm can be up to $10, 000. Is it true?
*I kind of doubt the accuracy of that figure, and the reliability of the source, and so, I ask.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 11, 2009 6:45:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 11, 2009 6:52:32 GMT -5
And they still backed off when it was called socialism or "hillarycare." It reminds me of this recent Gallup Poll. www.gallup.com/poll/116065/Americans-Views-Bank-Takeovers-Appear-Fluid.aspxConducted Feb. 20-22, 2009 by telephone with 1,013 national adults in a split-samples design with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. One randomly selected half of the sample was asked: " Do you favor or oppose the federal government temporarily taking control of major U.S. banks in danger of failing in an attempt to stabilise them?" : 54% were in favor, 44% opposed and 3% had no opinion. The other half were asked: " Do you favor or oppose the federal government temporarily nationalizing major U.S. banks in danger of failing in an attempt to stabilise them?": 37% were in favor, 57% opposed, 6% had no opinion. I, of course, added the emphasis. getting the result you want
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 15, 2009 8:05:33 GMT -5
[ETA] No clue how it submitted blank, especially as I didn't click or hit enter. o.O
Yes Minister FTW. ^_^
Universal, socialized, I don't care much what it's called, as long as something is done to replace capitalist healthcare with something that will actually get affordable (meaning each person can afford their care, not that basic care is affordable to those who make $50,000+/year) care to every citizen. And no, just expanding Medicare won't do it. Medicare does not cover preventative care, nor will it cover the costs for me to see specialists and get the medication I need to possibly become a functional citizen.
Privatized healthcare is fucking expensive. Just to pull numbers out of my ass and most likely grossly underestimate the costs, assuming a person makes $48,000 a year and pays an average of $400 in the cost of insurance and co-pays, that means they're paying 10% of their income to that. What I don't get is how a person in such a situation could be against a 5% tax increase to cover UHC, where they have smaller co-pays and don't have to pay an insurance company, thus giving them more money in their pocket while also having healthcare that covers more. I just don't get that.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 15, 2009 9:12:00 GMT -5
And just because I'm curious--does anyone know how much a surgery like mine would have costed in the US? I heard once (I think from a tv show*) that to reset a broken arm can be up to $10, 000. Is it true? I don't know about a broken arm but my our bill for my wife to give birth, natural, was around $28,000. So a case like yours would have very well broke your parents. I'm very lucky that I have very good insurance and it cost us only $250 out of pocket.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 15, 2009 11:20:03 GMT -5
And just because I'm curious--does anyone know how much a surgery like mine would have costed in the US? I heard once (I think from a tv show*) that to reset a broken arm can be up to $10, 000. Is it true? I don't know about a broken arm but my our bill for my wife to give birth, natural, was around $28,000. So a case like yours would have very well broke your parents. I'm very lucky that I have very good insurance and it cost us only $250 out of pocket. Never got a bill to give birth, never even heard of people getting a bill except in the US. One of the worst aspects of US healthcare as it is now is that the insurance providers dictate the choices of doctors. Their decisions are based not on the best treatment for the patient that gives best quality of life but what is a most cost effective "cure". Hence many treatments are never even considered. A good example would be doing amputations rather than spend a lot more money and time to save limbs.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 15, 2009 12:49:56 GMT -5
.....and they say capitalism is better?
|
|