Confused Briton seeks clarification from right -wing Americans

[scotth266]

But, don't you have to pay for private health care? At least this way everyone is covered.

Great, so now I have to pay for my health care in addition to paying extra taxes for ANOTHER PERSON'S health care. Yeah, that's really nice.

Sorry, but that isn't a solution in my mind: besides, in order to keep the cost down the government would either have to raise taxes by a good degree (bad), increase debt (worse), or make it extremely limiting (defeats the purpose.)

 

[Mediteral]

Becuase Right-Wing Conservatives can be really insane. You should hear some of the things they say, good god man....

 

[Dudemeister]

Within each version of the bill there are stipulations saying that all major decisions will be made by a government bureaucrat, which takes time that could, and will cause unnecessary mortality and morbidity, due to the lack of immediate on site decision making. I would rather have a doctor, not a politician, make recommendations and keep myself in charge, rather than have a corrupt power hungry politician in charge of my health.

If you actua\lly took the time to read any of the bill, you'd see that this isn't true. Maybe you should try using some sources other than Fox News.

^^ at my last post. I don't, but it seems that whenever anyone isn't a mindless follower of this white house they are obviously a mindless follower of fox news. I don't have the time, nor care, to pay that close attention to individual news stories, but I do to the sources. Your empty rhetoric saddens me because it's very patronizing, empty, and meaningless.

Hmm, why is it that whenever someone agrees with anything Obama proposes, they are immediately called a 'mindless follower or 'sheep' by Republicans ?

Same reason why whenever anyone disagrees with Obama's proposals they're called a mindless watcher of fox news. It's an empty insult which most people can't defend because it's absolutely meaningless, and completely unhelpful. Notice, though, that when this happens it is a total distraction to the original argument, so in essence, it is an attempt to destroy an opinion by discrediting, rather than winning in the field of thought.

THAT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE!
Well, ok, it's true but still...

 

[Skutch]

But, don't you have to pay for private health care? At least this way everyone is covered.

Great, so now I have to pay for my health care in addition to paying extra taxes for ANOTHER PERSON'S health care. Yeah, that's really nice.

Sorry, but that isn't a solution in my mind: besides, in order to keep the cost down the government would either have to raise taxes by a good degree (bad), increase debt (worse), or make it extremely limiting (defeats the purpose.)

Or they could, ya know, lower costs by reducing wasteful spending in the industry, which is notoriously huge. And of course a government program would drastically reduce incidents of insurance fraud (Medicare has a fraction of what private companies do). They could also influence the drug companies to reduce costs on prescription medication, which is several times what it is for the same or comparable drugs in other countries. And there's the whole potential for a relatively minor tax increase on corporations that provide health benefits for their employees, and whose costs will inevitably go down. You think those corporations are going to pass those savings on to their wage-slaves?
Seriously, even if there was a tax increase on the average worker, it would likely be insignificant compared to what you would save by not having to pay today's prices for private insurance. Or even worse, getting injured or seriously ill when you had no coverage at all.

 

[Skutch]

Same reason why whenever anyone disagrees with Obama's proposals they're called a mindless watcher of fox news. It's an empty insult which most people can't defend because it's absolutely meaningless, and completely unhelpful. Notice, though, that when this happens it is a total distraction to the original argument, so in essence, it is an attempt to destroy an opinion by discrediting, rather than winning in the field of thought.

THAT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE!
Well, ok, it's true but still...

Reminds me of when people protested the war in Iraq, the US torture program, and the systematic dismantling of our civil liberties and they were all called "UnAmerican" and accused of not supporting the troops.

 

[obex]

But, don't you have to pay for private health care? At least this way everyone is covered.

Great, so now I have to pay for my health care in addition to paying extra taxes for ANOTHER PERSON'S health care. Yeah, that's really nice.

Sorry, but that isn't a solution in my mind: besides, in order to keep the cost down the government would either have to raise taxes by a good degree (bad), increase debt (worse), or make it extremely limiting (defeats the purpose.)

Wait you do know how this works don't you.... you don't pay for your health care and then someone more as tax you just pay a fee on your tax and do not have to pay any more yeah your paying for someone's health care but then again someone is paying for you i do not believe its much more expensive then paying private and you get a standardised system with allot more control you can never be told "oh sorry you have not paid enough money or got a certain plan so your gonna have to pay extra" So unless who ever is in charge is a bumbling buffoon (NHS im looking at you)

But i must admit this has a big chance of fucking up if it gets done it must be done properly other wise it all falls apart (NHS!!!!!)

 

[scotth266]

Or they could, ya know, lower costs by reducing wasteful spending in the industry, which is notoriously huge. And of course a government program would drastically reduce incidents of insurance fraud (Medicare has a fraction of what private companies do).

The government is hardly a bastion of fiscal responsibility, and private companies are easier targets for lawsuits.

They could also influence the drug companies to reduce costs on prescription medication, which is several times what it is for the same or comparable drugs in other countries. And there's the whole potential for a relatively minor tax increase on corporations that provide health benefits for their employees, and whose costs will inevitably go down. You think those corporations are going to pass those savings on to their wage-slaves?

So the solution is to tax them out of it, instead of doing something productive like forcing them to spend more money on drug research? It's not that I don't object to keeping them from simply making off with extra money, I just object to the idea that mindless taxing is the way to go.

Seriously, even if there was a tax increase on the average worker, it would likely be insignificant compared to what you would save by not having to pay today's prices for private insurance. Or even worse, getting injured or seriously ill when you had no coverage at all.

While I agree with the line of thought that the government-run program MIGHT give companies competition (and competition is good), this reminds me of the Postal Service. Sure, it works most of the time, but if you seriously want to ship something you turn to a 3rd party like UPS.

I'm also highly critical of the line of thought that a tax raise is okay, regardless of how minuscule it would be, because of our President's constant reassurances during his campaign that taxes would not go up.

Wait you do know how this works don't you.... you don't pay for your health care and then someone more as tax you just pay a fee on your tax

Same difference to me.

But i must admit this has a big chance of fucking up if it gets done it must be done properly other wise it all falls apart

That's the main thing I worry about. I understand the need for good, cheap health care: I just don't trust the government to do the job. I can easily see this turning into an absolute nightmare.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I read a lot, it's a personal hobby. And I didn't say that our current system was the best, but I don't want the government involved. And businesses (and the government when/if they get in charge) will always be trying to deny coverage because they don't want to pay for it, that's obvious. Assuming that the government will not do that is unfounded, because the government is notorious for denials.

If you have been denied by the business, then find a different business to work with. That's an option, which the current bills being passed through legislation won't allow. If you don't want to work with the government, too bad, you're S.O.L.

ok you get denied by one health care company and guess what? the next one you go to will deny you as well because .... rolls the dice .... you were denied by the first company. you can go to each other company and receive the same results.

the thing is you say "oh i don't want the government involved but i want a health care system" well then you have one already without government involvement and look at how well that works.

too many people take the attitude of "we want a bunch of laws put in place but we don't want any body to police it" sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too. you either take business self regulating themselves and we all know how well that worked for the health care system, investing, mortgages and banking OR you have the government regulate things and keep tight control on how the companies behave.

frankly it's been proven more than once that governments are better at controlling things, look at how well the French, Canadian, English and Cuban health care systems are

 

[nickdon1]

If you get sick and an insurance company drops you it's almost impossible to get insurance again due to your newly acquired pre-existing condition.

So if you're saying that insurance companies will do a terrible job because they're motivated by profit to stop covering people, and the government won't do a good job because conservatives believe the government can't do a good job, then what alternative are conservatives proposing?

We obviously can't stick with the current system because it doesn't work for anyone but the rich and the current system is also leading to skyrocketing health care costs, meaning that simply leaving it alone will screw us.

So instead suggesting alternative plans, conservatives, and of course the insurance industry which has alot to lose and gain with this issue, simply shout down those supporting the plan.

 

[Suikun]

Well, I can't speak for the conservative crowd myself... and I'll say right up front here that I think that the majority of them tend to be religious wing-nuts who want more money in their pocket and less out actually helping America as a whole.

Personally, I think socialism is a lot better than people make it out to be. Socialism just means sharing the wealth of the few with the many, and probably the most common argument against that much is just that people think that that will kill any incentive to go out and get more demanding jobs like a doctor or lawyer. Without the promise of big bucks, they think that there's little-to-no reason to do it, which makes me shake my head with a sigh.

Why not work for the common good? Why not help your fellow neighbor? For all the religious folk out there, it sounds like that would be right up their alley because of the whole Jesus, "Love one another," thing.

But I digress. National health care sounds like a step in the right direction considering how many are forced to be homeless after a tragic accident, simply because they couldn't afford the current, privately owned healthcare systems.

I say, bring the socialism. The problem, it seems, isn't that it shares the wealth, but everybody seems to be scared of censorship and the government suddenly turning into a giant "do this, or die" entity, which... socialism isn't.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I read a lot, it's a personal hobby. And I didn't say that our current system was the best, but I don't want the government involved. And businesses (and the government when/if they get in charge) will always be trying to deny coverage because they don't want to pay for it, that's obvious. Assuming that the government will not do that is unfounded, because the government is notorious for denials.

If you have been denied by the business, then find a different business to work with. That's an option, which the current bills being passed through legislation won't allow. If you don't want to work with the government, too bad, you're S.O.L.

ok you get denied by one health care company and guess what? the next one you go to will deny you as well because .... rolls the dice .... you were denied by the first company. you can go to each other company and receive the same results.

the thing is you say "oh i don't want the government involved but i want a health care system" well then you have one already without government involvement and look at how well that works.

too many people take the attitude of "we want a bunch of laws put in place but we don't want any body to police it" sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too. you either take business self regulating themselves and we all know how well that worked for the health care system, investing, mortgages and banking OR you have the government regulate things and keep tight control on how the companies behave.

frankly it's been proven more than once that governments are better at controlling things, look at how well the French, Canadian, English and Cuban health care systems are

Well, you make the "cake and eat it too" comment, but look, most people arguing against the proposal don't want more laws. More laws means more government interference with our lives. We hold to the old fashioned lassiez-faire attitude that the government was originally built on. It has it's own problems, but we were okay with that.

And as for your last comment about government controlling things, I can't remember the last time that americans fled to Cuba for their health care, and Fidel Castro got his top notch health care.... in Spain. Cuba really isn't a good example because look at how poor the country really is, because it isn't an analogue.

This is a very important subject to me because right now I am in college studying to be a doctor, and the result may prevent me from finishing that goal, and switching it to one better suited. There are also stories from Canada and England of how long the waiting lines are for simple procedures, and it's also a system that does not promote people becoming doctors. In England, for example, once you study and become a doctor, you cannot start practice in your field until someone else in that field retires or dies, and there are countless seasoned professionals waiting for years and never actually able to practice.

In the whole country of Canada there are less neurosurgeons than in the city of Los Angeles because the reward (I.E. payment) for becoming a doctor do not outweigh the price of becoming one in too many peoples minds because the payment they receive is not enough. For both of these points I reference When the Air Hits Your Brain, by Dr. Frank Vertosick jr. http://www.amazon.com/When-Air-Hits-Your-Brain/dp/0393330494/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250288403&sr=8-1

The easiest way to reduce costs for doctors, right now, is to limit malpractice reward amounts, because right now doctors are paying so much for protection to prevent every little case from becoming a multi-million dollar malpractice suit that ambulance chasing lawyers are so quick to jump all over, that it is raising the individual costs associated with general health care. That law could be imposed without too much issues because it is Law regulating Law, not Law regulating Health.

 

[Destal]

Because some people are too shallow-minded to see the truth. It happens with just about everybody... well, here at least.

Its a power grab, and Orwellian is just a descriptive of how they are presenting itself. Doing a little research you will easily find that the president is back and forth on exactly what is in the bill (of which there are several different versions, not just one) and honestly if you take a historical, or definitive standpoint it is socialism.

Problem is, "socialism" has been so overused in the last 20 years, both correctly and incorrectly, that it has now become empty rhetoric. Nazi, likewise, but the terms are in essence the same, because Nazi stands for National Socialist. Just look at what socialist governments did in 1915-30 Russia and 1930-36 Germany and make the comparison of what the president is saying.

Also, "free" is not as free as you would expect. I don't want my neighbor paying for my health care because I don't want to pay for his. A tax increase is mandatory to be able to pay for it, so it's not "free." There is also going to be rationing within the bill, as it stands in each version, which is due to the fact that they cannot simply afford it for everyone, and the poor will lose out there still.

Also, I want MY CHOICES not the government choosing what health care I will be able to get. Within each version of the bill there are stipulations saying that all major decisions will be made by a government bureaucrat, which takes time that could, and will cause unnecessary mortality and morbidity, due to the lack of immediate on site decision making. I would rather have a doctor, not a politician, make recommendations and keep myself in charge, rather than have a corrupt power hungry politician in charge of my health.

Maybe I'm too much on the "self responsibility" thing because I'm not some mentally deficient, pathetic simpleton who requires the government to hold my hand for every little thing in the world.

If I wasn't already married I would propose to you right now...err awkwardness. Moving on...

I always find it funny how whenever a rational person questions whether or not something the left is doing is actually functional, they automatically become those crazy right wingers trying to rape children and beat the homeless.

Yes, there are ridiculous arguments against a NHS, however there are also some incredibly valid ones.

Have you ever been to the post office vs UPS or the DMV. Having been in the military for quite some time and seeing how we run our healthcare (Our healthcare is literally a socialist version) there is always so much red tape you have to go through to get anything done.

Why should I have to pay more in taxes to pay for people who don't take care of themselves, either via weight, lack of exercise, smoking, poor eating choices, drug use, etc. It seems unfair that I have to pay the same amount as everyone else when I try to eat healthy and take care of my body. Also, it reduces incentives for future Dr's to go to medical school because they will have to take a pay cute. Doctors hate taking Medicare/medicade patients because those programs literally pay 1/3 of what he would get from a private insurer.

I wouldn't say I'm directly opposed to it, I just would like to see far more of the outlying questions answered before it is forced upon us.

 

[geldonyetich]

The reason behind the attacks on the proposed changes to the health care system are simple:

The health care providers in America are making a killing right now, and it would really dig into their profit margins if the revamped system went into place, so they've actually dumped millions of dollars into advertising and fake grassroots campaigns to shut it down.

Suffice to say, if they're willing to propagate lies about starting death panels, they're willing to propagate lies about foreign health care systems.

But I'm not right-wing leaning, so perhaps I shouldn't be in this thread.

 

[Destal]

I don't listen to Fox news, so empty rhetoric is empty I don't have the time to, being busy with work and school, so please please please don't insult my intelligence by assuming I don't know what I'm talking about.

I read one of the bills myself, skimmed through a second and both are ugly. Empty rhetoric is empty. And yeah, I can say it works for some people, but the way it will be implemented here is very bad juju, read it for yourself, there's corruption all throughout it, and I say we would be much better off without this piece of legislative power grabs.

really so you actually read well over 1000 pages of law? cause that's how long the bills are

as for you being better off, sorry look at your health care system as it is today, watch the movie Sicko if you really want to see how your great your health care system is. especially the private health care insurance companies, one of the inspectors was told by the company to find ways to deny coverage to people.

Yes, because Michael Moore has always been a bastion of never exaggerating anything. He claims all his works to be 100% true until he is proven wrong, then claims it's satire.

 

[scotth266]

Patriotism my bum. You guys care nothing for your fellow country man.

Did you not see where I said this?

That's the main thing I worry about. I understand the need for good, cheap health care: I just don't trust the government to do the job. I can easily see this turning into an absolute nightmare.

Besides, what you've posted is actually more of a problem with American politics than Americans themselves. That's the funny thing: we're constantly judged by our politicians... which even WE hate. We only elect them because sane, intelligent people seem to have an aversion to running for office. I wonder if there's a correlation?

 

[Skutch]

While I agree with the line of thought that the government-run program MIGHT give companies competition (and competition is good), this reminds me of the Postal Service. Sure, it works most of the time, but if you seriously want to ship something you turn to a 3rd party like UPS.

I'm also highly critical of the line of thought that a tax raise is okay, regardless of how minuscule it would be, because of our President's constant reassurances during his campaign that taxes would not go up.

The Postal Service is an interesting example that has come up in a lot of these debates, comparing their problems to companies like UPS. Thing is though, the Postal Service provides lots of services that the private carriers can't or won't, like money orders and passports. Unlike the private carriers, they don't specialize in doing just one thing (transporting and delivering packages). They will also deliver to any legal address, which private carriers don't do. Try mailing a letter with a private carrier for 44 cents. The Postal Service has next-day flat rate envelopes you can stuff with up to 70 pounds and mail from L.A. to D.C. for less than $18. That same package sent by UPS would cost over $300.
I personally think the Postal Service charges too little for regular mail. What a lot of people don't mention when they inject them into this debate is that a lot of the postal service's troubles arise from the fact that because of the internet, fewer people pay their bills via mail, and so fewer and fewer stamps are being bought. So it's not that they're inefficient or terrible at what they do, it's simply that their business model still revolves around providing a service that is rapidly becoming outdated, much like newspapers and magazines.
Personally I agree with you on the tax thing. Generally my biggest tax hit comes from paying towards Medicare/MedicAid and for Social Security. All programs that probably won't exist by the time I'm qualified to benefit from them. It doesn't thrill me to think that I may have to pay more taxes, but SOMETHING has to be done to rein in the current system. And at least that way it may end up being something that may benefit me and everyone I care about.

 

[Ancientgamer]

It would cause a drastic decrease in the quality of health-care overall. It would drive millions of private practices out of business. There would be massive wait times, Triages. And most of all:

WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!

We just passed over a fucking trillion dollars in useless stimulus bills, and now they're proposing something that could drive us in the hole even in the best of time. Christ.

People don't seem to get american health care, If something happens to you, whether you have money or not, insurance or not. If something important happens, an emergence, you will get taken care of. No matter what. Questions of money and bureaucracy come later. With socialized health care, every single procedure will be wrapped up in red tape. And there's simply no way to make it work quickly. That's the whole advantage of small, independent practices.

And don't even get me started in the horrors of nation scale triages.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Because some people are too shallow-minded to see the truth. It happens with just about everybody... well, here at least.

Its a power grab, and Orwellian is just a descriptive of how they are presenting itself. Doing a little research you will easily find that the president is back and forth on exactly what is in the bill (of which there are several different versions, not just one) and honestly if you take a historical, or definitive standpoint it is socialism.

Problem is, "socialism" has been so overused in the last 20 years, both correctly and incorrectly, that it has now become empty rhetoric. Nazi, likewise, but the terms are in essence the same, because Nazi stands for National Socialist. Just look at what socialist governments did in 1915-30 Russia and 1930-36 Germany and make the comparison of what the president is saying.

Also, "free" is not as free as you would expect. I don't want my neighbor paying for my health care because I don't want to pay for his. A tax increase is mandatory to be able to pay for it, so it's not "free." There is also going to be rationing within the bill, as it stands in each version, which is due to the fact that they cannot simply afford it for everyone, and the poor will lose out there still.

Also, I want MY CHOICES not the government choosing what health care I will be able to get. Within each version of the bill there are stipulations saying that all major decisions will be made by a government bureaucrat, which takes time that could, and will cause unnecessary mortality and morbidity, due to the lack of immediate on site decision making. I would rather have a doctor, not a politician, make recommendations and keep myself in charge, rather than have a corrupt power hungry politician in charge of my health.

Maybe I'm too much on the "self responsibility" thing because I'm not some mentally deficient, pathetic simpleton who requires the government to hold my hand for every little thing in the world.

If I wasn't already married I would propose to you right now...err awkwardness. Moving on...

I always find it funny how whenever a rational person questions whether or not something the left is doing is actually functional, they automatically become those crazy right wingers trying to rape children and beat the homeless.

Yes, there are ridiculous arguments against a NHS, however there are also some incredibly valid ones.

Have you ever been to the post office vs UPS or the DMV. Having been in the military for quite some time and seeing how we run our healthcare (Our healthcare is literally a socialist version) there is always so much red tape you have to go through to get anything done.

Why should I have to pay more in taxes to pay for people who don't take care of themselves, either via weight, lack of exercise, smoking, poor eating choices, drug use, etc. It seems unfair that I have to pay the same amount as everyone else when I try to eat healthy and take care of my body. Also, it reduces incentives for future Dr's to go to medical school because they will have to take a pay cute. Doctors hate taking Medicare/medicade patients because those programs literally pay 1/3 of what he would get from a private insurer.

I wouldn't say I'm directly opposed to it, I just would like to see far more of the outlying questions answered before it is forced upon us.

While I thank you for the... compliment... I have to add one thing to your medicare/medicaid point. Most doctors quadruple or quintuple book slots for the medicare/aid slots because they are the least likely to show up, or pay their co-pay if they do. My mother did accounting work for doctors. My sister does booking for a dental office. One of my best friends is a doctor. You don't have to believe me, though, it's just my opinion from experience.

When you involve the government, it doesn't reduce cost, because government adds bureaucracy, red tape, regulation, etc, etc, etc, which all adds costs. Even if they claim that it will reduce cost, it won't. It may reduce the individual price you pay as you play, it never reduces cost. Doctors will make less money, so it's a cost to them. Pharmacies will earn less, so it's a cost to them. The cost will only increase, and they'll just change who the cost is coming from. Cost =/= Price.

 

[FarleShadow]

People don't seem to get american health care, If something happens to you, whether you have money or not, insurance or not. If something important happens, an emergence, you will get taken care of. No matter what. Questions of money and bureaucracy come later. With socialized health care, every single procedure will be wrapped up in red tape. And there's simply no way to make it work quickly. That's the whole advantage of small, independent practices.

I thought American hospitals typically only did 'patch jobs' (As in, patch up patients so they don't die) and that was the extent of their liability to non-paying patients?