Health care vent

slowgoin

XS650 Addict
Messages
107
Reaction score
1
Points
16
Location
Raeford, NC
Why in the world is their a law by our commander and chief that is own people do not have coverage for.....

Military kids can not have health care beyond 21 unless a full time student, It goes against his own law.
 
Last edited:
The Affordable Healthcare Act did not go far enough. No one should be forced into bankruptcy because they get sick. Spin it anyway you want, healthcare should not be a benefit, it should be a right.
 
I don't believe that having ones healthcare paid for by the government/taxpayer is or should be a fundamental right. That's similar to the belief that clean water, healthy food, and shelter, are fundamental rights that should be provided by the government.

In this country we all have the right to pursue these things, the sad fact is that not all people achieve them.

I do believe that, as a society, we should help out those less fortunate. The problem is that the government forces it's citizens, under threat, to handover their money which is then trickled through a bloated, inefficient, bueracracy to people who may or may not actually need the money.

The government seems to believe it can manage our money better than we can. I know that I would be able to give more to charity if I had less to pay in taxes.

Anyway I'm rambling, not trying to start any arguments just some food for thought.
 
Rights aren't supposed to cost anything. It all costs someone. I don't have the answer, but it's not what we have, and it ain't Obamacare either. Last year I shelled out 13 grand for "my share" of my company's health care plan, and used less than 1K worth of "benefit" This year I will pay more than that into Medicare and social security, and I won't ever get a single cent of that. At least if I'm coughing up "my share" to my plan, I have something to lean on if it all goes to crap. I have no insurance this year, and am going to spend all that money on somebody else's "right". Fuck that. If I was a drugged up piece of shit burden on society, I'd qualify for this "right", but since I choose to work and support my family, I am ineligible for the "right" but still get to pay for it? What a deal. We are already going broke with the people that are in the system. Imagine 16 million more leaches sucking the blood out of the system. I can't pay any more in so go finance your "right" somewhere else. You have a "right" to what you EARN.
 
should all children be given a basic education?
should all citizens be assured that the air that they breath and the water that they drink and the food that they eat won't kill them?
should there be public highways or only prively held toll-roads?
should the fire departments of this country be "for profit" companies with a "pay or burn" policy. They once were you know.

This talk of health care "rights" only turns one group against another. Let us speak of standards of living that we as citizens demand for all.

The line is drawn between those who religiously accept the myth that the best system is always a profit driven system and those who do not.

ALL of the advanced countries in the world except ours believe that health care and profit do not mix. Not surprising EVERY ONE OF THEM provides better health care at a lower cost than does the United States.


We are TIED with CUBA on the quality of our health care. That is a third world country my friends. And we pay the most per capita for health care than ANY ONE IN THE WORLD

The "single payer" concept is a halfway measure, but it is a step in the right direction. A step that you can be sure neither Obama nor Romney, the Dems or the Reps will back.

"Obama care" perpetiuates Health Insurance Industry profiteering. That's why the Supreme Court upheld it. What the Insurance Industry wants from our government, it gets.
 
Burns: When my father in law was in Houston with A.L.L. (Lymphoma) at MD Anderson, people were flying in from Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Thailand, the Middle East, South America, and Canada for cancer treatment there. They were paying out of their own pockets, cash. Yes, they were all rich, but they did not come there for third world care. The Russian oil man, Friedrick, is still friends with my mother-in law. My father-in-law died, and so did Fred's wife of 38 years, but he says we have the best in the world, and this is a man that comes in on his private aircraft to get that care, so I find it hard to believe we are so far off the mark with the quality. The Germans and Hungarians I work with are amazed at how many places they can go for basic or specialized care. They don't shop around. You get what there is. I'm not saying our system does not suck, since they let my wife and child's situation degrade to the point of "medical emergency" for 19 1/2 hours before they would do a C section. They said if they did not, the insurance would not pay for the operation. You say they provide better care at a lower cost. Based on who's assessment of better care, and a lower cost to whom? Seems to me no matter what the answer is it starts with: First, JD is gonna have to pony up some more cash! Why was Allan Keys not black enough to be the first black President? I'm going to bed.
 
Burns: When my father in law was in Houston with A.L.L. (Lymphoma) at MD Anderson, people were flying in from Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Thailand, the Middle East, South America, and Canada for cancer treatment there. They were paying out of their own pockets, cash. Yes, they were all rich, but they did not come there for third world care. The Russian oil man, Friedrick, is still friends with my mother-in law. My father-in-law died, and so did Fred's wife of 38 years, but he says we have the best in the world, and this is a man that comes in on his private aircraft to get that care, so I find it hard to believe we are so far off the mark with the quality. The Germans and Hungarians I work with are amazed at how many places they can go for basic or specialized care. They don't shop around. You get what there is. I'm not saying our system does not suck, since they let my wife and child's situation degrade to the point of "medical emergency" for 19 1/2 hours before they would do a C section. They said if they did not, the insurance would not pay for the operation. You say they provide better care at a lower cost. Based on who's assessment of better care, and a lower cost to whom? Seems to me no matter what the answer is it starts with: First, JD is gonna have to pony up some more cash! I'm going to bed.



The health care system of a country is not measured simply by what "a man that comes in on his private aircraft" can obtain. The very rich can get the very best here. For the rest of us, well, not so much.


The folks who keep track of such things measure things like the basic care provided to everyone and the total percentage of GNP spent.

If JD gets very, very sick he will certainly be ponying up more cash. Something like 78% of the total paid in health care in this country is paid in the last 6 months of life. That's off the top of my head but the numbers are pretty close.

Dying people are cash cows.



Sleep tight.
 
Try to keep focused on health care and facts. Remember "no politics" on the board.
 
Outside of Burns, (just ribbing ya on all them skins on the wall) I doubt there are many young, Idealistic people out there who want to go to school for 20 years to "help", and a payoff be damned. I'd like to think I'm a pretty good ways away from "end of life cycle" expenses, but wouldn't we all? I don't have a good answer, but the way things are going, "Logan's Run" is looking more like foreshadowing than Sci-Fi!
 
If government ran health care is so great then why did the prime minister of Canada go to Florida for his open heart surgery? Government ran health care is destined to end up like the social security program and every other thing the government gets involved in. Costly and poorly managed. Only 1 in 4 wanted the thing upheld.
jefft

Posted via Mobile
 
Last edited:
According to the World Health Organization the US health care system is ranked 37th in the world for quality and first in the world for cost per capita.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems
gives you the ranking by country and tells you how they reached those numbers

So, dropping all the politics and ideology out of the discussion, the cost:benefit ratio of our for-profit health care system is inferior to all of the industrialized countries of the world.

Doctors and other health care providers in those other countries make a good living, they just aren't millionaires. They choose their professions for some reason other than a desire to get rich. And of course there are no Insurance companies taking their cut of the costs of health care "off the top."

The "luxury" end of the market is solid here. If your resources are unlimited you can get the best care in the world from U.S. health care providers.

So, for everybody in the top 1% everything is fine and dandy with the current set-up.
 
Outside of Burns, (just ribbing ya on all them skins on the wall) I doubt there are many young, Idealistic people out there who want to go to school for 20 years to "help", and a payoff be damned. I'd like to think I'm a pretty good ways away from "end of life cycle" expenses, but wouldn't we all? I don't have a good answer, but the way things are going, "Logan's Run" is looking more like foreshadowing than Sci-Fi!

It's true I did go to school for 20 years. Mostly 'cause I just love to learn stuff. But like me Engineers, Physicists, Chemists, etc. etc. put in their share of class-room time to qualify for their professions. Most of us do not consider our degrees to be guarantees of wealth.

MD's do of course. And the MD market is kept tight by the policies of the AMA to assure that those expectations are realistic. It is a closed shop.

The lesson of other health care systems is that quality candidates will do the work needed to get medical training without a guarantee of great wealth. A good job
is a good job and lots of qualified folks in our country would be happy for the opportunity to make 80K a year or so if they did the work needed to earn the credentials and skills.
 
The willing are seldom the well funded, wouldn't you agree?
Do you think it should take that long to be a GP? A specialist should probably never stop learning, and any true professional in any walk of life does not. I personally feel like the exclusivity (financially and socially) of schools of medicine is probably a huge part of the problem. What say you?
When I was growing up, we never had insurance, and never worried about it, but a doctor's visit, X-ray and prescription did not cost a weeks' pay from a lower-middle class family either.
 
We haven't had solely for profit, market driven healthcare since the mid 60's.


"So, dropping all the politics and ideology out of the discussion, the cost:benefit ratio of our for-profit health care system is inferior to all of the industrialized countries of the world. " Burns quote
 
If government ran health care is so great then why did the prime minister of Canada go to Florida for his open heart surgery? Government ran health care is destined to end up like the social security program and every other thing the government gets involved in. Costly and poorly managed. Only 1 in 4 wanted the thing upheld.
jefft

Posted via Mobile

I am one of that other 3. I would have preferred that the SC strike the whole Act. But for the opposit reason as you. Obama care perpetuates the insurance dominated system, it does not address the root problems.

The answer is not no government it is better government.
 
If you check into the results of the study by the WHO you will also find that there has been much critizism of the results which many suggest were "cherry picked".
Jefft

Posted via Mobile
 
The willing are seldom the well funded, wouldn't you agree?
Do you think it should take that long to be a GP? A specialist should probably never stop learning, and any true professional in any walk of life does not. I personally feel like the exclusivity (financially and socially) of schools of medicine is probably a huge part of the problem. What say you?
When I was growing up, we never had insurance, and never worried about it, but a doctor's visit, X-ray and prescription did not cost a weeks' pay from a lower-middle class family either.

absolutely. as I said, "the MD market is kept tight by the policies of the AMA to assure that those expectations [of wealth] are realistic. It is a closed shop
 
We haven't had solely for profit, market driven healthcare since the mid 60's.


"So, dropping all the politics and ideology out of the discussion, the cost:benefit ratio of our for-profit health care system is inferior to all of the industrialized countries of the world. " Burns quote

I'm not sure of what changes in the 1960's you are referring to, or what you mean by "solely for profit" . There is a not-for-profit segment of U.S. health care certainly (the VA for example) but not many would argue that the mainstream system consists of for-profit insurance companies administrating payment to for-profit providers.

But, call it what you want, the system that we have cost more per capita and provides poorer service than any other health care system of an industrialized country.
 
If you check into the results of the study by the WHO you will also find that there has been much critizism of the results which many suggest were "cherry picked".
Jefft

Posted via Mobile

It is true that the study drew criticism and in response to that pressure WHO stopped ranking health care systems. Global warming studies get the same kind of heat.

The basic findings of the WHO study were replicated by other organizations. e.g.:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...t_sys_comparison_12_nations_intl_brief_v2.pdf
 
Back
Top