Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Are you for or against government healthcare Are you for or against government healthcare
View Poll Results: Are you for or against government healthcare
I am for it
162 53.64%
I am against it
140 46.36%

01-14-2012 , 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzwien
That's how a lot of the world works. When people want "free" stuff, everyone pays for it through taxes. For example, instead of just buying your own healthcare for cheaper than you're paying now in taxes+insurance, you're paying taxes into a large pool for everyone to use, whether they paid into it or not.

But to make it worse, when things are guaranteed "free" through taxes, the rates can keep going up because people are forced to pay taxes and have no say in the matter. This is why anything that is publicly funded through taxes is inefficient. There is no competition and there is no positive incentive to produce better, cheaper products.

But people love things they think are free! That's why it's not unrealistic to think free laptops, cellphones, TVs, etc. could happen in the future. You'll just have to pay more for them while innovation and quality cease to improve.

So it's all fine and dandy if you're life busto and are literally getting things for free, but the rest of society is being dragged down by the government because of all the free things people want. It's also a good way to busto the nation, as seen in the present. When you promise people free things and the tax pool is dry, debt accumulates.

Cliffs:

Left Wing = Ideology of Envy and Sloth


Right Wing = Ideology of Pride and Greed
01-14-2012 , 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzwien
Why would anyone want an inefficient government involved with the well-being of the citizens? Even if you ignore all the negative effects government has in the healthcare market. Add those in and it's not too difficult to see how nobody should want government involvement unless they want to pay more for worse quality.
Can you give any sort of evidence that you can achieve better healthcare without government intervention (aside from just stating it as an axiom of your belief system).
01-14-2012 , 09:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
I think the government should provide me with everything I ever need, and I don't care who they steal from to provide for me.
What on earth? Where is this slippery slope argument coming from? People want government healthcare therefore they must also want a free iPhone and a pony? This is no argument at all.

Also, the taxation = theft meme requires a very loose definition of the word theft. It doesn't help your case and makes you sound like a nutter.
01-14-2012 , 10:50 AM
i'm an oil man
01-14-2012 , 11:27 AM
I don't think a lot of people realize that it will be basically against the law to not have health insurance in 2014. So get ready to cough out some dough whether you like it (or want it) or not.
01-14-2012 , 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsme123
I have spoken to 10 doctors who work in NHS hospitals and a around 5 nurses. Every single one of them said that it is over-stretched.

Surely it is bounds to collapse at some point as everyone and anyone can walk in and use it. Anyone from any country on earth can do.
About half of NHS employees feel overstretched. They are wrong. They are also free to leave the industry if they dont like it.

By definition the medical industry will never be comfortable, its a stressful job with long hours but the only significant figures are ability to attract staff, waiting lists and some measure of successful outcomes. All of which the NHS is perfectly good to excellent at.

As for the second bit, you realise that "for some reason" lots of people from any country on earth dont just walk into the NHS for healthcare. I mean, surprising i know, but whilst 7 billion people could get emergency care if they travel all the way to Britain they dont.

Quote:
Treatment which is always free of charge

Some hospital treatment is free of charge for everyone who needs it, regardless of how long they have been or intend to stay in the UK. This is:-
treatment for accidents and emergencies as an outpatient in a hospital’s accident and emergency department. Emergency treatment in a walk-in centre is also free of charge (England and Wales only). However, if you are referred to an outpatient clinic or admitted to hospital from an accident and emergency department, you will be charged

compulsory psychiatric treatment

In England and Scotland, compulsory treatment under a court order

treatment for certain communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis, cholera, food poisoning, malaria, meningitis and pandemic influenza. Testing for the HIV virus and counselling following a test are both free of charge, but any necessary subsequent treatment and medicines may have to be paid for

family planning services.
The point is they only offer "free" treatment of emergencies or things that directly effect others.

Its a pathetic argument to say the NHS is bad because it treats people in emergencies. Pathetic as a viewpoint on how others should be treated and pathetic in that it has no real world application as an argument because its been this way for three generations and yet its still never bankrupted the country.
01-14-2012 , 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
yet its still never bankrupted the country.
So you are obviously clueless as to Britains current financial state.

Putting aside your biased posts, can you now say why you are so pro government healthcare?
01-14-2012 , 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
LOL, is this seriously how right wingers view the world? What a joke.
bahbamickey is supposedly a wealth advisor who didn't understand how marginal tax rates work. Mostly he's just an indefatigable talking point spewing machine.
01-14-2012 , 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzwien
Why would anyone want an inefficient government involved with the well-being of the citizens? Even if you ignore all the negative effects government has in the healthcare market. Add those in and it's not too difficult to see how nobody should want government involvement unless they want to pay more for worse quality.
Why don't you ask seniors? They've been around a long time and seen a few things, and will fight to the death to keep their Medicare.
01-14-2012 , 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by caseycjc
I don't think a lot of people realize that it will be basically against the law to not have health insurance in 2014. So get ready to cough out some dough whether you like it (or want it) or not.
Or you can just pay the tax penalty to offset the fact that you're already free-loading on the system. Sorry the free-ride is over. (well unless the republicans crank it back up again)
01-14-2012 , 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
I think the government should provide me with everything I ever need, and I don't care who they steal from to provide for me.
Why is it not theft again when my premiums pay for all the invincible 25-year-olds who get in a car wreck and stiff the hospital on a $100k bill?
01-14-2012 , 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barcalounger
Government should have a 100% coverage after a $20k deductible policy on all citizens. Protects people from a catastrophic loss incident with still room for cheaper private insurance to cover everything < $20k. It's really the 6 figure bankruptcy inducing hospital bills that people are worried about.
I don't think this is correct at all. A pretty large number of americans live paycheck to paycheck, and if it were free to go in for cheap preventative care, they'd do it in a heartbeat. It would be very beneficial for society overall as well. You think it's $20k losses that people are worried about, but I think a lot of people are worried about something as low as $500 making them unable to pay their rent for the month.

I don't know if you've ever had to go to the ER for anything, but for something as minor as a concussion you can easily be billed >$1000, even with insurance. Someone who is poor is just going to not go, or not pay the bill.
01-14-2012 , 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJA
I don't think this is correct at all. A pretty large number of americans live paycheck to paycheck, and if it were free to go in for cheap preventative care, they'd do it in a heartbeat. It would be very beneficial for society overall as well. You think it's $20k losses that people are worried about, but I think a lot of people are worried about something as low as $500 making them unable to pay their rent for the month.
This.

Also for a lot of people the 500 dollars, or even 50 bucks for a "check up" can yield them a lot of tangible benefits.

New copy of Madden for example.

Read Tien's posts in a different thread. He was shocked to find how little coverage his workers had and actually was moved to cover their asses.

The vast majority of people basically go around thinking "I don't need it yet. Later. Won't happen to me." They are probably right. But when they are wrong, all of us pay.

Last edited by grizy; 01-14-2012 at 01:33 PM.
01-14-2012 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjshabado
Source? That doesn't seem right.

And, because it seems that its not said enough, the US is already spending more per capita on health care than any other country. Take from that what you will but it at least means that there are lots of ways you can spend your healthcare money and that Government run healthcare doesn't have to be super expensive.

Edit: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt48b-eng.htm Seems to indicate that it's around 20% of combined federal, provincial, and local budget spending.
Sorry I reread the magazine article that stated it and it was "health care and social services".

My bad.
01-14-2012 , 01:42 PM
I think health care is something everybody in a 1st world country should have access to.

How the money is distributed however is where I completely disagree.
01-14-2012 , 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzwien
Why would anyone want an inefficient government involved with the well-being of the citizens? Even if you ignore all the negative effects government has in the healthcare market. Add those in and it's not too difficult to see how nobody should want government involvement unless they want to pay more for worse quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
I think the government should provide me with everything I ever need, and I don't care who they steal from to provide for me.
01-14-2012 , 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Or you can just pay the tax penalty to offset the fact that you're already free-loading on the system. Sorry the free-ride is over. (well unless the republicans crank it back up again)
I personally would never go without health insurance but my point is a lot of people aren't aware that they're in for a nice surprise in 2014. (Yes, unless) It amazes me how uninformed people are, they just don't get that like it or not they'll be shelling out hundreds of bucks each month or pay the tax penalty. (as you said)
01-14-2012 , 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsme123
So you are obviously clueless as to Britains current financial state.

Putting aside your biased posts, can you now say why you are so pro government healthcare?
Let me tell you a story about Steve, its a bit of a riddle. Steve was a good guy, but he wasnt so good with money. He ran up 25k in credit card debt, got a mortgage on a 200k house and didnt pay taxes on his small business and ran up debts to Inland Revenue of 35k. He knew what he had to do, so he went to the pub with his friends and had a few pints, bought his fair share of rounds, then on the next Monday he started the process to declare bankruptcy.

What drove him to bankruptcy? The drinks?

My posts arent biased, they are informed. There is a difference.
01-14-2012 , 02:08 PM
wat
01-14-2012 , 02:36 PM
A good " balanced " govermant healthcare could reduce the costs dramatic.
Its amazing that people still believe " private " is cheaper.

I can understand such a discussion only from one point..personal freedom to choose ...or forced to pay .
01-14-2012 , 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by solucky
A good " balanced " govermant healthcare could reduce the costs dramatic.
Its amazing that people still believe " private " is cheaper.
Yep.

A fun exercise for people to play around with that can help the "guvment bad, private good" people see the difference between the most costly health care system in the world (the U.S.) and other universal health care countries:

Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator

Edit: the link doesn't appear to be working right with explorer (the graph isn't showing up on my computer). But it works fine in firefox. If the graph doesn't show up for anyone, just google "Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator" and click on that link and hopefully then it should show up.

Last edited by ILOVEPOKER929; 01-14-2012 at 03:07 PM.
01-14-2012 , 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
I think the government should provide me with everything I ever need, and I don't care who they steal from to provide for me.
Then you need to run for congress.
01-14-2012 , 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJA
I don't think this is correct at all. A pretty large number of americans live paycheck to paycheck, and if it were free to go in for cheap preventative care, they'd do it in a heartbeat. It would be very beneficial for society overall as well. You think it's $20k losses that people are worried about, but I think a lot of people are worried about something as low as $500 making them unable to pay their rent for the month.

I don't know if you've ever had to go to the ER for anything, but for something as minor as a concussion you can easily be billed >$1000, even with insurance. Someone who is poor is just going to not go, or not pay the bill.
I agree completely, a rural doc that is really interested in public health came and gave a couple lectures to our medschool awhile back.

I don't remember what year the data was from, but in the US, the average bill leading to medical bankruptcy is less than 10k. Additionally, something like 40% of those people going bankrupt had medical insurance. Its really a myth that you don't have to worry about medical expenses if you have insurance. Realistically you need to have medical insurance and tens of thousands in the bank to be financially prepared to deal with a major illness.
01-14-2012 , 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILOVEPOKER929
Or maybe the drug companies charge whatever they want because government pays for it.
01-14-2012 , 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by surftheiop
I agree completely, a rural doc that is really interested in public health came and gave a couple lectures to our medschool awhile back.

I don't remember what year the data was from, but in the US, the average bill leading to medical bankruptcy is less than 10k. Additionally, something like 40% of those people going bankrupt had medical insurance. Its really a myth that you don't have to worry about medical expenses if you have insurance. Realistically you need to have medical insurance and tens of thousands in the bank to be financially prepared to deal with a major illness.
Yep. Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren really nailed it in this short video:

Professor Warren Debunks A Few Healthcare Myths

      
m