US health care Mentality

[Berethond]

Obama wants 900 million Billion dollars for health care over the next ten years.

How on earth does it cost three million dollars to insure each person for ten years?

There's only 300 people in the US?

Typo.
...
I'm still doing something wrong with my math...
But the point is right, I've got one of my other numbers wrong.

Well, there's 300 million people in the US, but only 99,880,223 people paid taxes in 2005. SO $900 Billion comes out to around $9,000 per taxpayer.

And there's no way to insure someone for less than 1,000 per year, so...
I got something wrong.

 

[BladesofReason]

Did you read my first post? I'm pretty sure I had soultions in there.

I did read your post and I liked some of your suggestions, I don't think anyone disagrees with your first point. Malpractice suits are out of control and fixing that problem will help alleviate some of the problems doctors face.

I also like your third point, I think that would provide incentives for hospitals to support their clinics.

The point in my initial post was that the whole system is built around the idea of making profit. Americans are very proud of the free market system, and I think in many ways rightfully so, but I feel in the case of the health and well being of the people then that should be the top priority; not monetary profit.

I very much respect your points, and I think you're right that doctors, who have the skills to save lives should be acknowledged and paid for their services. I don't think anyone's saying they shouldn't. It's simply a question of who should pay.

 

[Mcupobob]

Did you read my first post? I'm pretty sure I had soultions in there.

I did read your post and I liked some of your suggestions, I don't think anyone disagrees with your first point. Malpractice suits are out of control and fixing that problem will help alleviate some of the problems doctors face.

I also like your third point, I think that would provide incentives for hospitals to support their clinics.

The point in my initial post was that the whole system is built around the idea of making profit. Americans are very proud of the free market system, and I think in many ways rightfully so, but I feel in the case of the health and well being of the people then that should be the top priority; not monetary profit.

I very much respect your points, and I think you're right that doctors, who have the skills to save lives should be acknowledged and paid for their services. I don't think anyone's saying they shouldn't. It's simply a question of who should pay.[/quote.]

Ok, I respect how you where one of the few muture people here and can see your point too.

EDIT: mess up the quote

 

[Akai Shizuku]

My U.S. History teacher usually lists things like his health-care plan as "Socialism/Communism". It's hard to sit through her classes, because she will talk about Obama's plans and at the end say "Soounds like a good idea, right, but... [attempt to debunk].

That's another thing I hate about North American "education". It's often very, very biased.

OT: I'm just going to lurk. In my opinion, everyone deserves free health care as long as they contribute to society.

 

[SendMeNoodz84]

Americans are just too frightened and close-minded towards socialist ideas.

This. In many cases, the people opposing universal health care could very much benefit from it.

I've heard that if health care keeps going the way it is right now, in 10 years 40% of your paycheck would be going towards health care.

 

[Trace2010]

I have no problem with nationalized health care in the United States...so long as people understand that it is a burden needed to be equally shared by ALL Americans in order for it to succeed. No one division of the populace or tax bracket can support this provision. Consumption taxes or an increase in sales taxes (not really supported by either party in this debate) would probably be the best way to generate the necessary revenue among citizen and non-citizen alike.

Also, unless there are provisions in the bill where employers are banned from moving their workers to the public option for a span of say, thirty to fifty years after the public option is in place, the system put in place will collapse before the long term benefits of said system begin to cut into the cost. Just an eyeball estimate, but it will probably take between two and three generations before America begins to see the long term benefits of said public option.

 

[tk1989]

It goes against the philosophy of the "American Dream", the idea that every man can become something if he puts in the effort. Some people believe that this healthcare system opposes this notion because people they are paying money so that someone else can be held up, which goes against their philosophy. Why should they help these poorer people when they received no help themselves?

I dunno. It's all pretty stupid if you ask me and has been blown out of proportion. I actually think its ridiculous that someone cannot get healthcare, even if they are in dire need, just because they don't have insurance in one of the worlds leading countries. If people care so much about their private insurance allow them to continue to go private, but set up a public healthcare system to parallel it for those who are less fortunate. I actually find it mind boggling that people would oppose nationwide free healthcare! It really doesn't make any sense to me why people would oppose it to the degree which some people do.

 

[Lucifus]

My U.S. History teacher usually lists things like his health-care plan as "Socialism/Communism". It's hard to sit through her classes, because she will talk about Obama's plans and at the end say "Soounds like a good idea, right, but... [attempt to debunk].

Then that person shouldn't be a teacher. The entire point of teaching is giving people the basic facts and surrounding arguments then let them make their mind up.....not make their mind up for them.

Im not American but i do believe they should have a healthcare system that doesn't check your credit or insurance before deciding if they should save your life or not. By making it public people will be treated even if they cant afford it. Yes it will drive waiting times up but if people are that bothered.....go private.

 

[Chunko]

Can we stop already with this? At least contribute to one of the many open threads or something if you have an opinion. This is getting disgusting.

I live in Massachusetts, where Obama's good buddy Deval Patrick is Governor, and we have what is described as "near-universal" health care. What it really is, is everybody must have insurance, or you will be taxed at the end of the year. My wife and I combined make about 75,000 a year, which is not bad, but here's the deal. We do not qualify for free care, and have two children plus ourselves to insure. The cheapest plan the state offers us is 650 dollars a month. This is almost as much as our rent. Last year, she went jobless for a while, and we couldn't afford the health care for a while, and couldn't get free care because we made too much last year. Even though it was only 6 months, we were faced with a tax penalty at the end of the year.

Why would you punish people with a fine for not having insurance when they can't afford to pay for the insurance? It's squeezing water from a stone.

The way things have worked in MA is they haven't worked at all. All health care is still expensive, and it has done nothing to lower costs, instead they have put even more things in place to screw the middle class, while the super poor and super rich get the best care around.

Here's an article to show you how universal health care is working out on a small scale:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

Finally someone who's not an idiot

 

[DracoSuave]

The problem is very simple.

America claims to be a capitalist society. This means that it is -right- within that society to persue the best deal possible.

Americans pay, per capita, more for health care through their taxes than any other country in the world. Most Americans who do so do not see much return for this, and are required to spend -further- on their health care if they are to receive it.

So, you're paying twice and recieving once, and you're paying more than any one else.


Now, can any capitalist in the room tell me how this is in their best interest?

Thank you, I'd rather have my 'socialist' health care we have here in Canada. Cause it's the best deal. And as a capitalist, that means that I have no problem taking that deal.


We're not even talking Marxist theory here. It's not 'good on paper, bad in practice.' It's tested, tried, and it works, and it is the least expensive option in countries that apply it. The argument 'It doesn't work' is one based on ignoring the evidence where it has been tried.

 

[Jonatron]

I can see advantages of having competition with insurance companies but the free market can always do a better job than some form of Gov' care.

Always?
An open market's aspect of competition is often out-stripped by an market's will to keep high prices all around. Why compete when you can rip your share of the market off while people won't bother changing because all of the competition is as bad as each other? - putting some of that fat profit into advertising to keep up your user numbers, might I add. A cost that government ran services DO NOT require, spending YOUR MONEY so they can make more.
Don't believe me? Look at energy prices.

With a state ran system, there is no need for jacked up prices and no need for so called competition. Just an efficient service, far better than pure un-regulated capitalism could muster.

 

[Jonatron]

Obama wants 900 million dollars for health care over the next ten years.

How on earth does it cost three million dollars to insure each person for ten years?

Call it set up costs.
And the population will rise, too, of course.

 

[jpoon]

I can see advantages of having competition with insurance companies but the free market can always do a better job than some form of Gov' care.

Always?
An open market's aspect of competition is often out-stripped by an market's will to keep high prices all around. Why compete when you can rip your share of the market off while people won't bother changing because all of the competition is as bad as each other? - putting some of that fat profit into advertising to keep up your user numbers, might I add. A cost that government ran services DO NOT require, spending YOUR MONEY so they can make more.
Don't believe me? Look at energy prices.

With a state ran system, there is no need for jacked up prices and no need for so called competition. Just an efficient service, far better than pure un-regulated capitalism could muster.

If you really believe that the free market can't compete with the gov'ment then I will agree that the government should be given a chance to compete in the market with the rest of the businesses. There is no way I would trust the government to take over healthcare completely. Give them a chance, if they can keep up then woohoo, good job, for once the government didn't fail miserably. But if they don't succeed allow them to fail and end the program just as any business should be allowed to do, fail. Don't continue to shovel money at the problem as our government so seems to love doing.

There are prerequisites before this should happen though. We need the Tort reform and we need some deregulation, state line barriers being removed is a definite!
I'll give it a shot if the dems can wrap their minds around Tort reform.

 

[King of the N00bs]

*sigh* yeah our rebuke of the plan ridiculous i think Obama has a good idea i guess i cant do anything but recite one of my favorite quotes only slightly changed

...and they will look up and shout "save us"....and ill look down and whiper "no"

 

[Jonatron]

I can see advantages of having competition with insurance companies but the free market can always do a better job than some form of Gov' care.

Always?
An open market's aspect of competition is often out-stripped by an market's will to keep high prices all around. Why compete when you can rip your share of the market off while people won't bother changing because all of the competition is as bad as each other? - putting some of that fat profit into advertising to keep up your user numbers, might I add. A cost that government ran services DO NOT require, spending YOUR MONEY so they can make more.
Don't believe me? Look at energy prices.

With a state ran system, there is no need for jacked up prices and no need for so called competition. Just an efficient service, far better than pure un-regulated capitalism could muster.

If you really believe that the free market can't compete with the gov'ment then I will agree that the government should be given a chance to compete in the market with the rest of the businesses. There is no way I would trust the government to take over healthcare completely. Give them a chance, if they can keep up then woohoo, good job, for once the government didn't fail miserably. But if they don't succeed allow them to fail and end the program just as any business should be allowed to do, fail. Don't continue to shovel money at the problem as our government so seems to love doing.

There are prerequisites before this should happen though. We need the Tort reform and we need some deregulation, state line barriers being removed is a definite!
I'll give it a shot if the dems can wrap their minds around Tort reform.

I agree that a government ran opt-in service would probably be the best option, and I would love to comment further, but you're using some American political terms, which I'm afraid I just can't keep up with!
Yes, states having their own laws would be a great hinderance, if that is what you mean.
I have no clue what this Tort reform is, however.

 

[squid5580]

Americans are just too frightened and close-minded towards socialist ideas.

Unless it involves billions of dollars going to banks and car manufacturers.