USA health system... umm... what the hell?!

[DracoSuave]

Exactly. If you're paying more and getting less, then how can one rationally claim their system is better than systems that pay less and get more?

'But it will cost more!?!' 'Then you're doin' it wrong!'

Yeah, america's debt is out of control, but it ain't healthcare that's doin' it. You -can- provide health care AND take care of the deficit.

You need to wake up, look at the american budget, see what's costing the money, and look there to trim the fat. People are dying because of money going to the wrong places.

You know who gives politicians money? Lobbyists. You know whose money politicians care about? Their own and lobbyists. What? You want me to cut spending to myself and/or lobbyists? Naw, that can't be an appropriate solution.

Nobody ACTUALLY CARES about their constituents any more. The constituents only do so much when it comes to voting people into office, otherwise it's all campaign funding, and whatnot.

When the voting public stopped caring about what was true and what was false, and believed out right lies... that's when they sold the democracy to the autocrats.

"A two-party system is great, it's one more than the communists." - Jesse Ventura

 

[icaritos]

That is a weak argument, the US is nowhere near the best place in the world, and regardless there is always room for improvement.

Either way your original point was that socialized medicine is bad, I showed you examples of how that is not so for many first world countries and I'm still waiting for the reason behind your statement.

Socialized medicine, in its current form, hinders economic growth.

That, and it prevents EVERYONE from getting the most expensive shit out there because they can. They just get what they can afford and, more often than not, that's really all they need.

Yes, it is ridiculously expensive as it is. But this is largely due to internal problems in the medical system. If we can sort of deflate that, then this won't be an issue. Just by socializing medicine, it is only hiding the problem. And once we do that, the problem is on the government's hands and then, because of how the government works, it's back on us to fix it. Notably by placing a ridiculous tax on everything and hindering sales.

Economic growth? Of what kind? Are we still talking about someone's life here or a new TV. And again the point I made is that first world countries, who are doing well can handle such endeavors without much problem, why can't the US do the same.


Should a person be allowed to die because he had the gall of being born to a poor family, or as prices stand even a middle class one? Look I believe in the free market and capitalism, but only to goods to which one has a choice to acquire, health is not so forgiving. The matter with health issues is that they are rare. For each person with heart palpitations there are 100 without, so he has to pay the whole blunt of the price. No matter which country you look to, health is expensive without government subsidy.

So as it stands I firmly believe healthcare is one of the few things that remains best when socialized. You cannot predict accidents or genetic conditions, therefore a safety net to cover the general population is much more humane and sensible then when approached on a person to person bases. If you cannot (or refuse to) consider the solidarity of paying an extra 3 to 5% on taxes in order to save thousands (and it is thousands) of lives then consider it a safety net for yourself. A heart transplant costs over 300,000 going over to potentially 1,000,000 dollars. Yes the odds of you needing it are small, but still it is your life, wouldn't you rather those small odds be covered?

 

[Seives-Sliver]

Well, here is how it goes in America, everyone in the government is loaded already, if their insurance doesn't pay for something, then their job will, they got tons of money from going to school, and they don't really care about much else. They like to throw a label onto something just because it gives them more attention, and makes them seem more important, rather than actually help people, they are just cushioning their image in the public eye, so that when they run for something big, people remember them and say 'Hey, that's that guy that stopped us from falling into socialist hands, let's vote for him.'

 

[MakerOfRoads]

When the voting public stopped caring about what was true and what was false, and believed out right lies... that's when they sold the democracy to the autocrats.

"A two-party system is great, it's one more than the communists." - Jesse Ventura

Thats the thing. The voting public has no control over that sort of thing. You can vote for this guy or that guy to come into office, but when it comes down to it, neither one of them has an enforced obligation to keep any of their promises.

All the bashers, all the people who will (at the drop of a hat I might add) talk tremendous amounts of shit about the states, haven't actually tried to get anything changed there.

I've lobbied, I've tried, done the legwork, got petitions signed, and you know what it amounted to?
I was on the local news a few times as reporters covered it. Oh and as I said in a previous post, the people who worked inside the building had to close their windows or else risk having to listen to the "public" and their opinions.

Its bullshit. The voting system these days has taken away any actual power the citizen has and in return given the false notion that by putting a piece of paper in a box or checking a box on a computer screen gives you the power to choose how your government is run. It may choose who is elected, but what that elected person does in office is not decided by you, but by who gives his the most money, or presents him with the greatest opportunity for advancement.

 

[DracoSuave]

When the voting public stopped caring about what was true and what was false, and believed out right lies... that's when they sold the democracy to the autocrats.

"A two-party system is great, it's one more than the communists." - Jesse Ventura

Thats the thing. The voting public has no control over that sort of thing. You can vote for this guy or that guy to come into office, but when it comes down to it, neither one of them has an enforced obligation to keep any of their promises.

All the bashers, all the people who will (at the drop of a hat I might add) talk tremendous amounts of shit about the states, haven't actually tried to get anything changed there.

I've lobbied, I've tried, done the legwork, got petitions signed, and you know what it amounted to?
I was on the local news a few times as reporters covered it. Oh and as I said in a previous post, the people who worked inside the building had to close their windows or else risk having to listen to the "public" and their opinions.

Its bullshit. The voting system these days has taken away any actual power the citizen has and in return given the false notion that by putting a piece of paper in a box or checking a box on a computer screen gives you the power to choose how your government is run. It may choose who is elected, but what that elected person does in office is not decided by you, but by who gives his the most money, or presents him with the greatest opportunity for advancement.

Wouldn't it be awesome if there was an amendment in the constitution that actively encouraged people to rise against a tyrannical government that has exceeded its mandate?

 

[peruvianskys]

As an American, I just want to point out real quick that Americans are far more unhealthy in their habits than the citizens of most other nations, and that adds to a lot of the problem. A socialized system in this country wouldn't be bad, but too often non-Americans don't consider the lifestyle differences; with our massive obesity epidemic and our terrible eating habits coupled with our inbred insistence to never visit a doctor, I doubt a Sweden-esque healthcare system could sustain a 50 million fatties rushing to get whatever treatment they need and then heading home to watch tv with a bag of potato chips. I'm not saying we should be totally laissez-faire and let them all die or anything, but America needs a healthcare system more accurately tailored to its (frankly disgusting) health record.

When healthy people get caught up in that, it's unfortunate. I'm sure the insurance companies didn't put these restrictions up to prevent those with shoulder injuries from receiving help nearly as much as they did to keep chain-smoking blobs of fat from bankrupting the system. It's a terrible conundrum and I have no particular fix for it, but it should be noted that non-American healthcare systems are not guaranteed to work in America itself due to our country's unique health problems.

 

[odd function]

I'm an American, and I'll defend our health-care system. Here's why: $14,200,000,000,000. That's the American debt as of several weeks ago. We can't stop deficit spending as it is, we can't keep adding expenditures without drastically increasing our revenue. We just can't afford national health care right now. We're close enough to bankrupt as is, national health care is not possible for us right now.

Personally, I have mixed feelings on socialized health care in general, but dismissing that, it's completely impracticable right now.

But the CBO reported that Obama's healthcare plan will ultimately reduce costs. It is part of the irony of the Republican controlled house making a rule that any bill that increases spending should be matched with cuts elsewhere and immediately bailing on that rule when passing their healthcare reform repeal.

In a survey of all healthcare providers the VA came out on top, not only providing the best care, but doing it cheaper than the private sector. It is coincidentally pretty darn close to single payer.

Ultimately, private health insurance is a ridiculous burden on our economy and it will get worse. It doesn't help that median wages have gone down after adjusting for inflation, while the cost of nearly everything increases. Considering that our economy is consumer driven, this is a bad place to be. As for private healthcare, their primary concern is their bottom line. After all there is a difference between a business and a charity or even a non-profit.

I think that allowing people to have healthcare that is independent of employment will mean that fewer workers will feel "locked in" with their current employer because of healthcare, and they will be more able to pursue better jobs if they are dissatisfied with current working conditions.

 

[scott91575]

I'm an American, and I'll defend our health-care system. Here's why: $14,200,000,000,000. That's the American debt as of several weeks ago. We can't stop deficit spending as it is, we can't keep adding expenditures without drastically increasing our revenue. We just can't afford national health care right now. We're close enough to bankrupt as is, national health care is not possible for us right now.

Countries with socialized medicine pay less per capita than the US is paying now, in tax money. The argument that you're saving money right now is absolutely bogus... you are NOT saving tax money right now.

Personally, I have mixed feelings on socialized health care in general, but dismissing that, it's completely impracticable right now.

The current system is wasteful and costly compared to socialized medicine. Why claim wanting to save tax dollars is a valid motivation when it's proven that you aren't?

Where is that tax money going? Certainly not into Alison's shoulders.

Proven where? How does this even make any legitimate sense? We can barely afford medicare and medicaid, how would a socialized health care system any cheaper? How do we pay for our current system in tax dollars? I just don't see it. Socializing health care would mean paying the salaries of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of nurses, doctors, and their retirement. Not to mention medication and utilities and machines.

We may pay more per capita, but it's not tax money.

He is talking about reigning in health care costs. You would not be paying their salaries, you would be paying per procedure. When you do that, you can dictate the cost of procedures and drastically reduce costs. Sounds simple, but would take a long time to implement. There is also the issue of medical malpractice and other areas. So yes, costs are out of control, so that is one side of it.

Like I have mentioned before, I have no problem with tackling this from both ends. The system does not need to be complete social health care, but costs also need to be tackled. I would normally be on the side of free market, but with inelastic demand like health care it often requires government intervention otherwise the consumer is gouged. Of course, as stated before, the US marketplace drives innovation that is seen across the globe. People not in the US should be happy. The US drives costly R&D that otherwise would never happen, and then countries with government controlled health care can use those innovations while controlling cost.

BTW...I am not stating US companies are the only ones making medical breakthroughs, but the ability to charge a premium in the US market can finance a companies bottom line. In essence, the US citizens help fund world health care. Not exactly something the US should be interested in, but if the US is able to reign in costs it will slow innovation for the entire world.

Well said. My opinion is that costs need to be cut and frivolous malpractice lawsuits(like most of the lawsuits that target anesthesiologists) need to be stopped completely. That would go a long way towards making health-care affordable. You also need to take into account that hospitals aren't the only ones gouging you. In fact, because of all the staff regulations require them to have, many hospitals here are closing down. Health-insurance companies also gouge you quite a bit. Their profit needs to be limited.

The US system of law is mostly based off the English model (well, except Louisiana which still goes by a Napoleonic setup) with some differences. One of the major differences is lawyer fees are not transferred to the loser. The thinking there is that "the loser pays legal fees" eliminates many legitimate lawsuits, especially for the individual. The downside is it creates many frivolous lawsuits, especially when lawyers are willing to work on contingency. I am not a fan of this setup, and the US legal system is one of the few in the world like that.

 

[chrono16]

Its really stupid, and there is no reason for it. I think we could have a better country if corporations didn't control half of it....

Haven't thought about that before. That would actually explain a lot of things... What's in the best interest of a company isn't always in the best interest of the people!

Well who would control it then? The Government? They are worse than the corporations. Quoting Ronald Regan " The Government doesn't have an answer to the problem, the Government IS the problem." I have that America is giving up all kinds of little stuff for "safety".

 

[Liudeius]

I never said MSNBC had no biased, but if you don't admit that Fox is biased to the point of radicalism, you sir are an idiot.

If you honestly believe that you are basing your opinion on anything other than sheer hatred for those who differ from you ideologically, then you are an idiot. And a hilariously unaware one at that.

And it's not spin, Cadet. If you accept that your news sources are incredibly biased (and MSNBC is, to the point of radicalism), then your perception of Fox as HIDEOUSLY TEH EBIL is automatically suspect. Pointing out that a major news source relied upon by people who hate Teh Fox, and one that helps them form their perceptions thereof, is biased is not spin; it's the introduction of evidence that said perceptions are in themselves not necessarily based in reality.

Of course, for lefties like yourselves, if you can't argue, you just attack the messenger. Or try to scare and/or demonize people, whichever works. Logic, reality, debate, they don't matter. Just personalize, paint, and attack. Predictable, so sadly predictable.

In closing, there's one more point: I don't watch Fox. I can't stand channels that are 70% devoted to opinion pieces (at least Fox denotes them as such, far more honesty than you get from CNN), and the format annoys me...the weird "breathless" style of speaking wears me out...and a lot of other channels have adopted it (see: Cenk Uygur).

Well I have to admit I do hate gay-haters, but otherwise, no, conservatives are usually either 1) just as entitled to their views, or 2) horribly misinformed by Fox (ex: death panels).

My news sources do not include MSNBC, I look for news that has the least bias possible, so it, and any TV news program, is out of the question.
If you have forgotten, you were the one who said MSNBC was biased, I only agreed with you because it is true. I'm not about to waste time listing every news organization and its bias...

"Lefties" like ourselves can and do argue, the problem is that, rather than listening to reasonable, well thought out arguments, Fox viewer listen to Glenn Beck. Anything trying to compare the other side to Hitler/Socialism/Serial killers is very obviously just employing the tactics you accuse "lefties" of.
Generalization (another strategy often employed by Fox) is also a clear false argument, note that with your generalization you are doing exactly what you are supposedly condemning. There are both Liberals and conservatives who make reasonable arguments, and those who act like Fox. The focus of this is however to present Fox's extreme bias, so those are irrelevant.

Condemning Fox for its actions is not "attacking the messenger", you yourself admit that Fox is not a messenger, "70% devoted to opinion pieces." Calling Fox "News" biased and fear-mongering in no way warrants your personally inflammatory response.
(And yes, I do realize I called you an idiot, however I apologize for that. Having to constantly put up with similar "logical arguments" from Fox gets very aggravating.)

 

[scott91575]

Its really stupid, and there is no reason for it. I think we could have a better country if corporations didn't control half of it....

Haven't thought about that before. That would actually explain a lot of things... What's in the best interest of a company isn't always in the best interest of the people!

Well who would control it then? The Government? They are worse than the corporations. Quoting Ronald Regan " The Government doesn't have an answer to the problem, the Government IS the problem." I have that America is giving up all kinds of little stuff for "safety".

I prefer this one....The ten most dangerous words in the English language are "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

 

[Extracredits]

No country anywhere has free healthcare, you just pay for it now instead of later. There's a reason taxes in the United States are among the lowest in the world, while medical bills here are through the roof. Though I should point out that Allison's insurance (you know, that she paid for) backed out, so if we're going to have some government intervention it should really be in making sure insurance companies don't do clearly illegal things like that.

It is illegal to back out like that now i think.

That portion of the healthcare reform bill doesn't go into effect until 2014...by which time I'm afraid it may be repealed.

 

[MakerOfRoads]

Wouldn't it be awesome if there was an amendment in the constitution that actively encouraged people to rise against a tyrannical government that has exceeded its mandate?

As a member of the armed forces, I believe I can accurately give an informed opinion on the subject.

The US (in particular, the southern US) is known for its love of firearms. We wave the second amendment around because well, it is a good idea for its citizens to be able to keep firearms for the purpose of being able to start an armed insurgence against its own government if it becomes tyrannical.

That being said, the notion of a group of people taking to the streets, taking people hostage or blowing up buildings to create political change, do you honestly think that would work out to the benefit of the people taking to the streets?

Do you think that a group of armed insurgents, equipped with at best assault rifles, would be any match for the National Guard, or worse yet, the United States Military? Domestic Terrorism cases have shown what happens to those people. Look up the events of Waco, TX. See how it turned out for them (and that was only the SWAT teams.)

It would take a vast amount of people, well equipped, to even present them with a challenge.

It sounds like a good idea, starting a revolution for the good of the land, but when your armed with an SKS walking the streets and you run into a goddamn tank and 100 men with assault rifles and machine guns, you realize the futility of it.

 

[Bobbity]

I live in Aus too, and I was just as... amazed... when I read about this. I'm stunned that you guys don't have a uniform healthcare system. I know you're big on screw the government sentiments over there, but wouldn't you consider this to be worth slightly higher taxes?

 

[Swifteye]

As an American, I just want to point out real quick that Americans are far more unhealthy in their habits than the citizens of most other nations, and that adds to a lot of the problem. A socialized system in this country wouldn't be bad, but too often non-Americans don't consider the lifestyle differences; with our massive obesity epidemic and our terrible eating habits coupled with our inbred insistence to never visit a doctor, I doubt a Sweden-esque healthcare system could sustain a 50 million fatties rushing to get whatever treatment they need and then heading home to watch tv with a bag of potato chips. I'm not saying we should be totally laissez-faire and let them all die or anything, but America needs a healthcare system more accurately tailored to its (frankly disgusting) health record.

When healthy people get caught up in that, it's unfortunate. I'm sure the insurance companies didn't put these restrictions up to prevent those with shoulder injuries from receiving help nearly as much as they did to keep chain-smoking blobs of fat from bankrupting the system. It's a terrible conundrum and I have no particular fix for it, but it should be noted that non-American healthcare systems are not guaranteed to work in America itself due to our country's unique health problems.

Wow. I never thought of it that way. Your perspective on this is awesome.

 

[rednose1]

I'd imagine if everyone got universal healthcare, then it would be more like a Wal-Mart's style of business, where everyone and their brother is in seeking help, and the doctor has maybe 5mins total to take care of you before moving on, which could increase the chances of missing something important. Then there is the increase in taxes, that never goes over good. Other developed countries can do this becuase they don't spend nearly as much on military spending as us.

Not saying our system is fine, because that would be a lie. But to simply say, "Copy and paste ours, and you'll be fine!" is also somewhat silly.

 

[GartarkMusik]

Yeah, it's pretty much a broken system. And the worst thing about Obamacare? No one knows what's in the goddamn bill cause no one wanted to read a 3000+ page document. It's pathetic, really.

 

[MakerOfRoads]

As an American, I just want to point out real quick that Americans are far more unhealthy in their habits than the citizens of most other nations, and that adds to a lot of the problem. A socialized system in this country wouldn't be bad, but too often non-Americans don't consider the lifestyle differences; with our massive obesity epidemic and our terrible eating habits coupled with our inbred insistence to never visit a doctor, I doubt a Sweden-esque healthcare system could sustain a 50 million fatties rushing to get whatever treatment they need and then heading home to watch tv with a bag of potato chips. I'm not saying we should be totally laissez-faire and let them all die or anything, but America needs a healthcare system more accurately tailored to its (frankly disgusting) health record.

When healthy people get caught up in that, it's unfortunate. I'm sure the insurance companies didn't put these restrictions up to prevent those with shoulder injuries from receiving help nearly as much as they did to keep chain-smoking blobs of fat from bankrupting the system. It's a terrible conundrum and I have no particular fix for it, but it should be noted that non-American healthcare systems are not guaranteed to work in America itself due to our country's unique health problems.

"As an American who lives in a stylized alternate reality born on the internet"

There fixed that for you.

Sure there is a sizable portion of the US that is overweight and it is a real problem for the US, stating that enough of the US is overweight "chain-smoking blobs of fat" that it would "bankrupt the system" when all the people who have an "inbred insistence to never visit a doctor" start "rushing to get whatever treatment they need" is in the face of reality.

Have you actually been to the US? And if you have, did you actually get out and see the people who live here? Sure there are fat people, but then again that is everywhere. Visit San Francisco and tell me how many fat people you see chain smoking and eating funnel cakes as your stereotype suggests. Or take a run down to Miami and check out all the fatties flooding the beaches as what obviously must be the case cause I mean, a good number of Americans go there, right?

 

[peruvianskys]

"As an American who lives in a stylized alternate reality born on the internet"

There fixed that for you.

Sure there is a sizable portion of the US that is overweight and it is a real problem for the US, stating that enough of the US is overweight "chain-smoking blobs of fat" that it would "bankrupt the system" when all the people who have an "inbred insistence to never visit a doctor" start "rushing to get whatever treatment they need" is in the face of reality.

Have you actually been to the US? And if you have, did you actually get out and see the people who live here? Sure there are fat people, but then again that is everywhere. Visit San Francisco and tell me how many fat people you see chain smoking and eating funnel cakes as your stereotype suggests. Or take a run down to Miami and check out all the fatties flooding the beaches as what obviously must be the case cause I mean, a good number of Americans go there, right?

I'm just saying from my personal experience living in several towns across America, the majority of people are overweight and eat unhealthily. I grrew up in Northern Idaho - do you have any idea the kind of cesspool that place is? Everyone smoked, no one exercised, obesity was something like 70%. Obviously I'm not saying that everyone in America is like that, or even fat at all, but it's undeniable that the American public is generally fairly unhealthy, especially when considered against other populations with socialized healthcare systems.

As for the inbred resistance to medical treatment, that's fairly undeniable. Most people who don't live in the major population centers never visit doctors; that might be related somewhat to the lack of free healthcare, but there's also a general distrust/avoidance of surgery, physicals, etc.

 

[manaman]

Personally I love threads like these. It's a chance for every Tom, Dick, and Jane to waltz in drop their two cents about a complex problem. Foam bearly contained hatred all over the place. Seethe all up and down about how great things are where they are, and how stupid everyone else is.

It's like you have a 75% chance of guessing what people are going to say before they say it based solely on the location they hail from, and it would be a full on 100% you didn't have a split from people in the US who will either defend everything to their death, or will apologize for their countries sins (mostly the non existent ones of course).

I don't have all the answers, I would like to see the US have a health care system, but not to be like everyone else.

Based on what I do know:As has been pointed out people pay one way or another for their health care. What really needs to be reigned in are the insurance companies. We need tighter regulation over them and some goverment assistance to people that cannot pay on their own. That's a great start and frankly all we need to be on our way.

As an American, I just want to point out real quick that Americans are far more unhealthy in their habits than the citizens of most other nations, and that adds to a lot of the problem. A socialized system in this country wouldn't be bad, but too often non-Americans don't consider the lifestyle differences; with our massive obesity epidemic and our terrible eating habits coupled with our inbred insistence to never visit a doctor, I doubt a Sweden-esque healthcare system could sustain a 50 million fatties rushing to get whatever treatment they need and then heading home to watch tv with a bag of potato chips. I'm not saying we should be totally laissez-faire and let them all die or anything, but America needs a healthcare system more accurately tailored to its (frankly disgusting) health record.

When healthy people get caught up in that, it's unfortunate. I'm sure the insurance companies didn't put these restrictions up to prevent those with shoulder injuries from receiving help nearly as much as they did to keep chain-smoking blobs of fat from bankrupting the system. It's a terrible conundrum and I have no particular fix for it, but it should be noted that non-American healthcare systems are not guaranteed to work in America itself due to our country's unique health problems.

You do know male obesity rates in Europe have surpassed those in the US from time to time right? They stay pretty close for the most part. Most times the US is ahead, but only by a bit, and sometimes it isn't.

You don't see them screaming about an obesity problem. Take a look around when you are out and about sometime, unless you live in a problematic area of the country chances are most people are either mildly overweight (which isn't unhealthy in itself) or right around where they should be.