10sun wrote:How will this be funded?
If you did away with the majority of government funded programs, that are wasting money as Ron Paul suggested. You could deffinatly fund that.
Ron Paul 2008
Moderator: Dictators in Training
Tossica wrote:10sun wrote:So instead of one government program, we have another.
So instead of a bunch of bullshit programs we have one useful one and a healthy population.
Correct, you lose the programs that have not done anything really for the american people, except for waste money. You add in a healthcare system, that helps Old, young, rich, poor equally. You make America a better place to live, and the quality of life go up.
I do not have problems with taxes funding government agencies, as long as those agencies or programs directly effect and help the American people, and that are not wasteful.
Why fight it, i am a Man Whore!
-
10sun
- NT Drunkard
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:22 am
- Location: Westwood, California
- Contact:
What makes you think that this one will be any different?
Have you ever dealt with either Medicare or Medicaid? From a purely anecdotal experience, neither program is truly helpful.
I think you would see better results by a widespread healthcare, pharmaceutical, & tort reform.
Nobody is ever denied immediate medical care if they go to a public hospital.
What happens is that they are left with debt.
What happens with obese people? Someone who for instance eats 10 hamburgers & a beer to go with each one every day of the week except Friday where he skips the food & goes straight to the liquor.
Should the public be responsible for keeping him alive after his sixth heart attack? He will never be part of a healthy population. I certainly wouldn't want my taxes going towards his healthcare.
Have you ever dealt with either Medicare or Medicaid? From a purely anecdotal experience, neither program is truly helpful.
I think you would see better results by a widespread healthcare, pharmaceutical, & tort reform.
Nobody is ever denied immediate medical care if they go to a public hospital.
What happens is that they are left with debt.
What happens with obese people? Someone who for instance eats 10 hamburgers & a beer to go with each one every day of the week except Friday where he skips the food & goes straight to the liquor.
Should the public be responsible for keeping him alive after his sixth heart attack? He will never be part of a healthy population. I certainly wouldn't want my taxes going towards his healthcare.
10sun wrote:What makes you think that this one will be any different?
Have you ever dealt with either Medicare or Medicaid? From a purely anecdotal experience, neither program is truly helpful.
I think you would see better results by a widespread healthcare, pharmaceutical, & tort reform.
Nobody is ever denied immediate medical care if they go to a public hospital.
What happens is that they are left with debt.
What happens with obese people? Someone who for instance eats 10 hamburgers & a beer to go with each one every day of the week except Friday where he skips the food & goes straight to the liquor.
Should the public be responsible for keeping him alive after his sixth heart attack? He will never be part of a healthy population. I certainly wouldn't want my taxes going towards his healthcare.
But you are perfectly fine with paying astronomical health insurance premiums on top of the astronomical taxes you already pay?
-
10sun
- NT Drunkard
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:22 am
- Location: Westwood, California
- Contact:
I receive health insurance through my school, prior to that, I lived without general health insurance & carried what is called catastrophe insurance ($5k deductible) @ $35 a month.
I consider the taxes I pay to be low compared to if I lived in a country with government sponsored healthcare.
So yes. I am fine with no government health care system. I would even advocate getting rid of Medicare/Medicaid.
As I said before, the real key to the nation's healthcare issues would be tort reform.
I consider the taxes I pay to be low compared to if I lived in a country with government sponsored healthcare.
So yes. I am fine with no government health care system. I would even advocate getting rid of Medicare/Medicaid.
As I said before, the real key to the nation's healthcare issues would be tort reform.
-
10sun
- NT Drunkard
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:22 am
- Location: Westwood, California
- Contact:
Better check your numbers there.
Last I heard it was around 45 million Americans that did not have health insurance during part of the year.
1/3 of those are making more than $50,000 a year, thus implying that they have chosen not to sign up for health care.
Another 1/3 of those were eligible for Medicare and/or Medicaid, however they chose not to apply for those benefits.
So in reality it was probably closer to 15 million Americans without health insurance.
You can try to play the numbers game, but the numbers just don't add up in the end.
Once again, making health insurance affordable would be much easier with proper tort reform.
I have no inclination to pay for the healthcare of others though.
Last I heard it was around 45 million Americans that did not have health insurance during part of the year.
1/3 of those are making more than $50,000 a year, thus implying that they have chosen not to sign up for health care.
Another 1/3 of those were eligible for Medicare and/or Medicaid, however they chose not to apply for those benefits.
So in reality it was probably closer to 15 million Americans without health insurance.
You can try to play the numbers game, but the numbers just don't add up in the end.
Once again, making health insurance affordable would be much easier with proper tort reform.
I have no inclination to pay for the healthcare of others though.
have a look at this image, overall costs for healthcare can really do nothing but go down and save money if the stats followed the lead of pretty much any other industrialized country out there and put in place universal health care. The current american system has all kinds of parasites leeching off the system, sucking every dollar they can.
Granted looking strictly at average age and using it as a gauge to compare the quality of health care is a stretch, but even if you just look at the amount spent per capita you can clearly see the current system is messed up
some text from a website concerning this
Another reason some countries achieve high life expectancy with low health spending is that clean drinking water and preventive health care can be provided with little spending. If there is near universal clean water and preventive care, life expectancy rates can be high. In the US, however, nearly 40 million Americans lack basic health insurance, and are therefore less likely to receive preventive care. In contrast, Cuba has universal health care and one of the highest doctor-to-patient ratios in the world (See Physicians). Although Cuba has limited resources and many economic problems, it has made health care a priority. It is not alone. Sri Lanka, China and the Indian State of Kerala are considered "low-income, high well-being" countries, which have adopted policies that not only reduce inequality but also increase overall health and well-being. The results of these policy priorities are significant, and can be measured in survival indicators, such as average life expectancy.
10sun wrote:Better check your numbers there.
Last I heard it was around 45 million Americans that did not have health insurance during part of the year.
1/3 of those are making more than $50,000 a year, thus implying that they have chosen not to sign up for health care.
Another 1/3 of those were eligible for Medicare and/or Medicaid, however they chose not to apply for those benefits.
So in reality it was probably closer to 15 million Americans without health insurance.
You can try to play the numbers game, but the numbers just don't add up in the end.
Once again, making health insurance affordable would be much easier with proper tort reform.
I have no inclination to pay for the healthcare of others though.
FUCK Health insurance. That's the bottom line for me. How the hell a company wedged their way in between me and my doctor is beyond my comprehension. How does a company make a profit gambling on whether someone gets seriously ill or not and it NOT be illegal?
Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are seriously evil entities and need to be stopped. As distrusting as I am of my government, I would rather pay taxes and have them put a program in place that is NOT profit oriented to take care of it's citizens.
They wedged their way in because doctors had to raise prices ridiculously high to pay for malpractice insurance.
Inside each person lives two wolves. One is loyal, kind, respectful, humble and open to the mystery of life. The other is greedy, jealous, hateful, afraid and blind to the wonders of life. They are in battle for your spirit. The one who wins is the one you feed.
Martrae wrote:They wedged their way in because doctors had to raise prices ridiculously high to pay for malpractice insurance.
I actually believed that until I started looking into it.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
I'll have to look and see if I bookmarked some of the reports when I get home, at least a few of which were Congressional inquiries. Basically malpractice insurance while having risen constitutes a very small portion of the overall costs of providing health services. This is not to say it doesn't have an effect, the impact probably is hardest on general practitioners who run a small office, however the cost of a standard doctor visit for a cold is not what is actually driving up the health insurance cost, it is the costs of major medical services which is affected more by high dollar equipment, pharmaceuticals, and testing.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
