Healthcare in this country stinks

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

No, its perfectly simple SlapMonkey, and this is nothing to do with the first amendment.

If people consistently vote for people who refuse to socialise medicine, then they are voting FOR private medicine, which, as can be very easily demonstrated, is bad for patients, costs hundreds of percent more than it should or needs to, and means that despite spending more per head on healthcare, this expenditure does not translate to improvements in life expectancy, commensurate with that spending. If you vote for private medicine, you choose to be ripped off, you choose to have unaccountable CEOs deciding matters of life and death (not something which ever ought to be left to someone who is worried about the bottom line), rather than qualified, medical practitioners, devoted to the task of life saving, making any and all decisions about the care of patients.

Basically, the people who vote for private medicine, have two options, and neither of them involve complaining. One may simply NOT have private medicine which works fairly, correctly, or to the benefit of patients, because the aim of operating a private business is for the creation of wealth for those who own it, not those who work in it, not those who deal with the public, not those who deal with the really hard decisions, the qualified staff. If you vote for a system which by definition is NOT there to benefit the user of the service, but itself, you have no business complaining when it performs exactly as intended. The options therefore, are simple. Vote only for politicians and Presidents who want to socialise healthcare, or bend over, brace yourself, and prepare to not only receive the attention of a proctologist, but also to pay through the sphincter for it also.

The fallacy of your thinking is that you assume government bureaucrats don't also look at the bottom line. In fact, I'd argue they do more so than private companies because government tends to have much more limited budgets and rigid sets of rules they can follow.

The reason the free market works is that the consumer has a CHOICE. That choice is what drives businesses that don't perform well out of business. Government never goes out of business, no matter how bad they perform.

For the umpteenth time, much of the issues with private healthcare ARE BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT. Government imposing regulations that hamper free markets from performing efficiently and cost effectively.

The easier you make it for multiple health insurance companies to compete, the cheaper prices will be because those companies will offer products that consumers want at a cost they can afford. One of the reasons health insurance is so expensive is because government forces insurance companies to cover more than many consumers actually want.

I'm in my mid 40s. I don't drink or do drugs. I am done with having children. If I could buy an insurance policy which excludes coverage for child birth or rehab for a lower cost, I would. I'm a grown azz man, I know what I need covered and if for some reason I am wrong, then quite frankly, it is on me and I can't go crying that insurance companies are evil because they didn't cover something I chose not to include.

Pre-existing conditions are issue because people don't buy any kind of catastrophic insurance and then when they have an issue, they want to run to an insurance company to get covered. IT DOESN"T WORK THAT WAY. You can't go buy life insurance after you've died! Or go get home owner's insurance while your house is on fire.

a reply to: Edumakated

Private insurance companies are privatized socialism for profits.

And there little in the way of down ward pressure on costs.

The ACA made it mandatory that the insurance co's get to keep 20% for profits. So the larger the premiums the larger the 20%.

And let's get out of imaginary land that the costs were not going up pre-ACA. They were.

I remember in the 1990's the multi national I worked for asking everyone to think about allergy meds, like Clairitin. Clainitin was a prescribed med and was fairly expensive. This multi billion dollar corp I worked for made mention of this during an emplyee meeting. It was making insurance cost go up.

We are screwed. If we look around the world there are no countries that have higher costs, but there are countries that have better health outcomes. And for less than 1/2 the cost. And everyone has coverage.

a reply to: Edumakated

Here is the fallacy bound within your thinking Edumakated.

First of all, free markets unregulated by governance, do NOT operate correctly, properly, or in any manner other than exploitatively. Free markets arrange price gouges, monopolies, bid fixing and price fixing. Free markets brew, at the behest of the financially stratospheric, methods of continuing their monopolies, in such a fashion as to become behemoths far more powerful than either governments, or the paying public.

The oil companies did, the car companies do, the housing firms and the construction companies do, and so does every other major market. Every place you THINK you see competition, what you are actually seeing on an aggregate basis, is collusion and conspiracy, coming together to fool you into believing that you are paying for what you get, rather than paying over the odds so that someone can drink a better bottle of wine with their caviar. That is what you are voting for.

You can pretend all you like that the system you desire is anything other than designed to make money from the suffering of others, but that is what it is, regardless of your opinion of it, or inability to understand it well enough to form an opinion reflective of reality.

As for your argument in your last two paragraphs...

You say that if you fail to include something, its on you. What you should have said is "If me, with my total lack of a medical degree, did not realise that I am sixty percent more prone to heart failure from this rare condition, than other people, and I get that condition, then its on me".

Sounds dumber when you actually put it in a way which details what you would have to have known, in order to protect yourself from that particular uncertain future. No one can know their own future more than sixty seconds forward down the line, theirs or anyone elses. The universe does not permit overmuch forward planning. You can prepare for every eventuality, and the universe will provide one which you could never have seen coming in a million years, even with the assistance of a quantum computer and the expertise of Dr. Emmet bloody Brown.

And as for your last paragraph... Guess what? In places with PROPER healthcare provision, you do not have to buy any kind of catastrophic insurance, or any other kind of insurance at all, because if you get sick from ANYTHING, from the common cold, to a traumatic brain injury, to a life long battle with Crohns disease, you get treated, at no extra cost. You can be sick, or well, and you pay the same small amount to be both. You do not get put into destitution because you got sick. You do not have to choose between getting that all important lung transplant, or someday sending your child to university. You do not have to choose between lighting your house, or getting your medication. In countries which do not needlessly victimise the already physically weak, when they are too poor to protect themselves from the situation they have been placed in by their lives, a proper system of caring for the ill just treats your wounds, your ailments and your pains, and tries to save your life without asking a damn thing in return, other than a tax payment to keep the system working.

No one in this country has to worry, while they are laying with their guts hanging out after an accident, whether they will be able to afford to pay for all the surgery they are having. They may worry about how long they can afford to take away from work, before the boss can no longer afford to keep them on. They may worry about whether the government will see to paying them a benefit until they can work again, or in the serious circumstance of life changing injury, whether the government will make getting their long term disability benefit harder than it has to be. But no one... NO ONE in this country, goes without surgery or treatment because it is too costly.

Many people in the states however, do just that.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps, but the specific list is there in black and white.

Zecharia Sitchin wrote an entire group of books surrounding Nibiru and the Annunaki--they're in black-and-white, too, but that doesn't mean that his claims are real.


"Free healthcare" is a unicorn, yet it's cited time after time.

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a legally binding interpretation of the human right to health, which is recorded in the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', in a document generally referred to as General Comment 14.

So, it is actually codified as a universal human right.

A "right to health" is not synonymous with a "right to healthcare at the taxpayers' expense." I just read the entirety of CESCR General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), and it absolutely appears to agree with me. It is in no way a mandate for socialized/universal healthcare.

In 2009, in a study by the American Journal of Public Health, it was found that 45,000 people per year were dying from lack of health care specifically because they could not afford insurance.

So, I'd call the "forced law access to emergency heath care", ineffectual BS. A government snow-job to hide their failures.

Call it whatever you want--I call your claim without a link so that I can see the specifics of the claims "ineffectual BS," tantamount to the claims of throwing granny off of a cliff.

And regardless, my comment was specifically about emergency care--stop with the red herrings. First with the General Comment 14, and now with unlinked studies conveniently timed around the hefty debate around passing the PPACA.

Also, (and please forgive my very 'back of the envelope' figures) if your population base is, say 323.1 million people of which 5% have health costs @ $50,000 P/A, that averages out to an annual tax of @ $2,500 per citizen and the health of all those requiring care would be fully funded for a socially acceptable cost.

Are you really claiming to know what a "socially acceptable cost" would be on an additional taxation on the American people?

Personally, I find any additional taxation on the American people to be unacceptable. But to be fair, I have said in other threads that I could possibly get behind a bare-minimum healthcare funded by the taxpayers, meaning things like annual check-ups and the like--routine stuff. Then personally purchased healthcare would be necessary above and beyond the basics. But even then, I don't trust the government to run it efficiently nor to keep it at a basic level, so I'm absolutely, 100% unwilling to hand any portion of my healthcare over to government control/administration.

I understand that this is a foreign concept to many, many people. So be it...how do they do things over there on the new continent?

This has also led to a per capita healthcare cost of about $8,953 P/A. In most other countries in the world, healthcare costs are manageable and far less than half the US cost. It makes sense for governments to assure the best healthcare for its citizens is available, regardless of their income.

America has the best healthcare in the world available for its citizens, regardless of their income. We have programs that subsidize low-income people or waive their costs altogether. We have programs that fund healthcare for the elderly to certain degrees. We have programs that fund healthcare for our veterans.

Disregarding the hyperbole of the media and politicians, healthcare for the vast majority of Americans is something manageable and affordable, even if most of us may not like the cost involved. But, in a world full of smart phones, designer clothes, LED HD televisions, high-speed internet, and easy-to-get car and home loans, one should also take stock in the idea that most of the people complaining about the cost of caring for their health might not have their priorities in the right place.

The notion that you should not pay a tax for this, because you would be paying for the healthcare of someone else and that you will never get sick, is both morally reprehensible and unreasonable.

First off, that's absolutely your own subjective opinion, not a fact.

Second, if you think that we don't pay taxes that go to government-run healthcare programs, you shouldn't discuss this issue anymore. Even our current insurance model is me paying for someone else's healthcare, as I guarantee, 100%, that I use my insurance less than 90% of the people in my insurance pool.

For balance, consider that the US government in 2012 spent $52,800,000,000.00 on 'black budget' military projects (above and beyond normal military funding). Such projects persist to this day. Your taxes continue to pay for that.

Wouldn't it be preferable to choose a 'better spend' that actually, provably and directly directly saved the lives of citizens rather than a lot of wasteful "golden hammer" projects that probably won't save any lives, much less have a positive outcome?

For balance, consider that spending on our military is a constitutionally mandated budget item, and our government MUST do so. Individual healthcare, not so much.

And no, I wouldn't rather just shuffle the money, I'd rather get rid of the fraud, waste, and abuse in our government agencies and reduce the tax burden of the American individual, so that we can keep more of our own property (income) so that maybe people wouldn't bitch about the cost of caring for their health while doing so on social media from a smart phone.

originally posted by: seasonal
Are you under the impression that single payer systems have slave Dr.'s and that a tax payer based system paychecks are worth less than a insurance based one?

No, what makes you think that? That wasn't my claim or my comment at all.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey


If people consistently vote for people who refuse to socialise medicine, then they are voting FOR private medicine, ...

Ah, yes, the You're-Either-With-Us-Or-Against-Us tactic. If this is the basis of your argument, you're already starting off on a logical fallacy, but let's continue...

... which, as can be very easily demonstrated, is bad for patients, costs hundreds of percent more than it should or needs to, and means that despite spending more per head on healthcare, this expenditure does not translate to improvements in life expectancy, commensurate with that spending.

Let me get this right: So, you have a subjective determination for what healthcare "should or needs to" cost, and now that is the baseline by which we should all measure our own opinions?

As for the reality of the situation, there are more variables behind the "why" U.S. healthcare costs as much as it does--some of which I have listed time and time again--that go ignored by those who make synonymous arguments to your all of the time. If you want to continue this line of argument and belief, that's up to you, but I'm not going to list, yet again, reasons that increase our healthcare costs beyond your arbitrary level of acceptability.

If you vote for private medicine, you choose to be ripped off, you choose to have unaccountable CEOs deciding matters of life and death (not something which ever ought to be left to someone who is worried about the bottom line), rather than qualified, medical practitioners, devoted to the task of life saving, making any and all decisions about the care of patients.

So, with you and this black-and-white mentality, I understand why you think the way that you do.

All I will say is that I disagree with your claims as being factual in general. Yes, there are anecdotal stories that prove your point, but overall, you're just spewing hyperbole.


But I think that you and I probably agree on one thing--the insurance industry and its middle-man tactics of syphoning away healthcare dollars should be abolished. It should not, however, be replaced with the federal government.

The options therefore, are simple. Vote only for politicians and Presidents who want to socialise healthcare, or bend over, brace yourself, and prepare to not only receive the attention of a proctologist, but also to pay through the sphincter for it also.

Great hyperbole, yet again.

Look, I get that you're engulfed in socialized medicine, that you don't live in the U.S., and therefore only have anecdotal and media-published horror stories on which to base your 'knowledge' of the U.S. healthcare system and the experiences of most patients.

I live here, and have for 38 years of my life, barring 3.5 on military bases in Germany. As of right now, I, personally, have zero complaints about our healthcare system. I have chronic asthma. I have to see a chiropractor regularly for a disc problem and recurring headaches. I have had surgery on both of my shoulders. I wear glasses. I've had teeth crowned before. I am in the final stages of recovering from bronchitis (and with asthma, that's not fun). I've had X-rays done on (possibly, but not) broken toes. I've had to see physical rehabilitation people for extended periods for numerous issues (I'm very active, so it comes with the territory).

My point is that I have never, every even come close to feeling overly burdened financially for my medical woes and uses of American healthcare. And those examples above are only for me--they don't include all of the things that my children and wife have used our healthcare system for over the years.

Most, if not all, of my friends and family are in the exact same boat as me, regardless of our respective incomes. And I can't just assume that I'm friends with and related to the few fiscally responsible people in America, and that everyone else get's hammered month-by-month with medical costs. Yes, they exist and are unfortunately plentiful in number (but small relative to the American population), but they are not the norm, and to pretend so is rather ridiculous in a conversation that should be strewn with reason and logic.

I voted for Thomas Massie every time that he has run for congress, and he and I see eye-to-eye on the vast majority of things and the way (coupled with the reasons why) that he votes on legislation. He is absolutely opposed to universal healthcare, but he also despises the current norm as well. It's not black-and-white, TrueBrit, even if you repeatedly present it that way.

But you can bet your ass that I will always vote against universal healthcare in America--and I will still complain about the current system if I damn well please, and I will do it rationally and logically. If you don't like it, that's up to you, but you should not assume the responsibility to tell anyone if they have the right to complain about an issue or not simply on the way that they vote. That's completely ridiculous.

Sometimes I feel that I need to direct attention to my Jefferson quote below--this is one of those times. I'd rather pay extra if necessary to keep the federal government from usurping control over my healthcare. But, that's a personal opinion to which I'm entitled...we'll agree to disagree, apparently.

ETA:

originally posted by: TrueBrit
No one in this country has to worry, while they are laying with their guts hanging out after an accident, whether they will be able to afford to pay for all the surgery they are having. They may worry about how long they can afford to take away from work, before the boss can no longer afford to keep them on. They may worry about whether the government will see to paying them a benefit until they can work again, or in the serious circumstance of life changing injury, whether the government will make getting their long term disability benefit harder than it has to be. But no one... NO ONE in this country, goes without surgery or treatment because it is too costly.

Many people in the states however, do just that.

Again with the goddamn hyperbole.

Just stop--seriously.

No one with their guts hanging out after an accident is going to be denied emergency surgery to save their life, even if they have zero insurance and are homeless on the street. Hell, they wouldn't even have a choice--the hospital must perform the life-saving procedures and related care, per federal law.

Seriously, please stop with your nonsensical scenarios and lies. We get it--you're uber-emotional over this topic. That doesn't tend to lend itself well to logical discussion (see the above quoted comment of yours as proof).

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Your statement sounds funny. The govt or medical insurance companies have no money. It is the peoples. And I don't like the idea of govt run anything. But it is becoming more and more evident that the US for profit system is broken.
All we have to do is look at other industrialized countries and their standard of care is the same or in many cases better, at no less than half the cost. And in many cases their life expectancy rate is better.
I want to see the peoples money spent in the best manner and cover everyone.

Health care is not a right, just a fabricated argument when it is called such. No one should have the right to someone else's products, services, skills, or time without due compensation (paid for by the individual, not a government). We have a right to life, not a right to artificially sustained health.

.

a reply to: seasonal

It's more of a philosophical statement to which I generally adhere: Something cannot be a right if it infringes on someone else's right.

If we say that people have a right to healthcare, that means that they have a right to someone else's efforts and products, as well as the fruits of their knowledge and skills. No one has a "right" to those things.

Rights should be relatively abstract--a right to be religious, to keep and bear something, to speak your ideas, to be secure in your property, to cast a vote, to have laws apply to everyone equally, etc.

When a right starts saying that you have access to something that is dependent on the fruits of someone else, that starts getting really, really dicey, IMO. And I know that some current rights fall under this category, and I take those on a case-by-case basis (such as the right to legal representation). I don't always agree or disagree, and sometimes even when I disagree, I see how it benefit more important rights (such as the right against self-incrimination and a trial by jury).

But even taking the sixth amendment as an example, the entirety of the field of law is not administered and run by the federal government--attorneys have private practices, for the most part, but have the option to either work for a public-defenders office or to sign up on a list of available public defenders. Therefore, attorneys are not forced to work for the government, but do so by choice.

If the entirety of the healthcare industry was nationalized, if you are a doctor, you are now forced to work for the government, without exception, and with that, lose the ability to autonomously control your own practice (in theory). Even with compensation (at taxpayer expense, now), they no longer get to choose for whom they work, and they lose many other aspects of private control over your employment. Also, if what my surgeon tells me about his time in England is correct, they are told what procedures they must perform, no matter what their specialty is (not always, but it is mandatory).

This is a poorly written elaboration of what I meant--in nationalizing healthcare, it suppresses one groups rights and freedoms for the sake of other rights and freedoms. I'm not okay with that added pressure that comes from government control over entire industries.

This statement probably sounds funny, too--I'm hungry and typing on low blood sugar. I probably shouldn't do that.

#IWasBornARamblin'Man

a reply to: SlapMonkey

"If the entirety of the healthcare industry was nationalized, if you are a doctor, you are now forced to work for the government"

Here in the UK we have a national health service but we also have private insurance based medicene so as a doctor you are not "forced to work for the government"

A lot of doctors actually work for the NHS and also work privatley so you may have understood how this can work.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The dr.s are part of networks, and they are tightly controlled. In fact the insurance companies can and do control # of patients per hour or minutes spent with patients.

Any system that takes care of people are going to have people who need let's say a gallbladder out or they will die. Now under our system the poor person has it taken out. And society pays it is free to the poor person.

We are at the point with cost that we have limited moves to solve this before it crashes.

No insurance.

Pay to play, no exceptions. And the above poor person will die.

Charity-demand would outstrip this in a hurry.

Or watch cost continue to rocket up. And it will crash.

Other industrialized countries have this figured out at 1/2 the cost with better medical outcomes.

a reply to: nonspecific

I understand some of that, but with the way that our American government works, the entire system, IMO, would end up nationalized, like the VA system. It may not be the initial step, but that would be the culmination of it.

I could be wrong, though--but either way, I don't see it happening, so it's not a massive concern of mine and is more of just a hypothetical, philosophical exercise.

a reply to: seasonal

I still feel that you are leaving out so many variables that allow other countries to be at "1/2 the cost" that I can't discuss this with you without going into a long, drawn-out comment full of quotes and links, which I'm unwilling to do in this thread (but have done in others).

Suffice it to say that we just seem to disagree on a solution to the known problem that healthcare is unaffordable to some in America.

But keep in mind, I've never once said that I think that the insurance industry should be abolished by enforceable law, just that I wish that it would not be expected to be the norm in our society anymore. It should always exist as an option, though, for anyone who wants to purchase it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: nonspecific

I understand some of that, but with the way that our American government works, the entire system, IMO, would end up nationalized, like the VA system. It may not be the initial step, but that would be the culmination of it.

I could be wrong, though--but either way, I don't see it happening, so it's not a massive concern of mine and is more of just a hypothetical, philosophical exercise.

If you have the time then you should watch this documentary on the birth of the UK national health service,

It is a long one but very interesting and I imagine a lot of the concerns in the US are mirrored in the documentary as it is a mighty big step.

a reply to: nonspecific

Would love to, but I don't have 77 minutes to devote to it right now. Hopefully I can come back to it, because I'd really like to see what it says.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: nonspecific

Would love to, but I don't have 77 minutes to devote to it right now. Hopefully I can come back to it, because I'd really like to see what it says.

without giving the end away a lot of people including all the doctors and most of the politicians were really against it and said a lot of the things I hear people from the US saying about why they done want one.

a reply to: nonspecific

*fingers in ears* LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps, but the specific list is there in black and white.

Zecharia Sitchin wrote an entire group of books surrounding Nibiru and the Annunaki--they're in black-and-white, too, but that doesn't mean that his claims are real.

"Free healthcare" is a unicorn, yet it's cited time after time.

But I live in a country with both 'free' and 'universal' healthcare (as is reflected in the table that was linked).

As an example, a few days ago, I visited my GP, here in New Zealand. I did not have to pay for my doctor's visit, it was 'covered'.

I did not have to pay for the pathology (a blood test to determine my HbA1c level, among others), it was 'covered'.

The doctor then wrote up a prescription, namely; short acting insulin and a medium-long acting insulin mix, enteric asprin, a statin, metformin, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, an antidepressant (which I am not currently taking), sleeping tablets (which I rarely need), an anti-migraine med, an antibiotic (I have nearly completed the full course), a gastric reflux supressor, glucose meter test strips, insulin injection sharps and finger-prick device sharps.

I took that prescription to the Chemist and they provided all the medicines. When I asked the Chemist if there was anything to pay, they smiled and said, "nothing today".

By the way, my glucose meter and insulin injection pens were all provided free of charge and maintenance/calibration/replacement of my glucose meter is also free.

Similarly, my visits to the triage nurse, dietician, periodic optometrist checks for diabetic retinopathy, accident emergency, X-Ray services and psychologist are entirely without charge (dentistry still extracts a fee - ha, ha, a joke).

Yes, I pay tax and the difference in tax that I used to pay before health was government funded, compared with what I currently pay is negligible.

Here's a link to the New Zealand Immigration's website on "Paying for healthcare services" (note that this is a government website).

So, that is my experience of socialized medicine. I had a similar (but not as comprehensive) experience when I lived in Australia (which also has free and universal health care).

Americans are set to pay $523,900,000,000.00 in defense spending and about $50,100,000,000 in foreign aid this year. While there may be advantages to the American public from this, chances are that there will be no directly attributable advantage at all. Yet you won't pay for your own well-being! That's nuts!

A "right to health" is not synonymous with a "right to healthcare at the taxpayers' expense." I just read the entirety of CESCR General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), and it absolutely appears to agree with me. It is in no way a mandate for socialized/universal healthcare.

So people dying because they can't afford heath care is somehow compliant with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and CESCR General Comment 14? Get real.

Call it whatever you want--I call your claim without a link so that I can see the specifics of the claims "ineffectual BS," tantamount to the claims of throwing granny off of a cliff.

So you want a linkage? Here 'tis:

Harvard Gazette - New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

The Guardian - Will losing health insurance mean more US deaths? Experts say yes

Obamacare Facts - Facts on Deaths Due to Lack of Health Insurance in US

Annals of Internal Medicine - The Relationship of Health Insurance and Mortality

America has the best healthcare in the world available for its citizens, regardless of their income.

My son had a terminal cancer and is now in remission after chemo/radiation/gene therapy treatment. If we had been required to pay for it at at US cost levels, he'd be dead (I know because I researched it at the time).

Americans die of lack of level of insurance coverage. The TV shows "Scrubs", "House" and "ER" (among others) often were about that. How can you deny something publicly portrayed for over a decade?

We have programs that subsidize low-income people or waive their costs altogether. We have programs that fund healthcare for the elderly to certain degrees. We have programs that fund healthcare for our veterans.

All our citizens are universally covered, and it's not just in New Zealand.

Disregarding the hyperbole of the media and politicians, healthcare for the vast majority of Americans is something manageable and affordable, even if most of us may not like the cost involved. But, in a world full of smart phones, designer clothes, LED HD televisions, high-speed internet, and easy-to-get car and home loans, one should also take stock in the idea that most of the people complaining about the cost of caring for their health might not have their priorities in the right place.

First off, that's absolutely your own subjective opinion, not a fact.

Health care in the US is over priced (the highest in the world) and unfair (it is not universally available). That is a fact. It has nothing to do with anything else at all.

Second, if you think that we don't pay taxes that go to government-run healthcare programs, you shouldn't discuss this issue anymore. Even our current insurance model is me paying for someone else's healthcare, as I guarantee, 100%, that I use my insurance less than 90% of the people in my insurance pool.

For balance, consider that spending on our military is a constitutionally mandated budget item, and our government MUST do so. Individual healthcare, not so much.

Where in your constitution does it determine the percentage of budget spent?

And no, I wouldn't rather just shuffle the money, I'd rather get rid of the fraud, waste, and abuse in our government agencies and reduce the tax burden of the American individual, so that we can keep more of our own property (income) so that maybe people wouldn't bitch about the cost of caring for their health while doing so on social media from a smart phone.

... and after a thousand years, you'll all be nearly like the rest of the world, except they have free universal health care, working capitalistic systems and where their poor are better off than the average American.

Like they are now:

List of countries by wealth per adult From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



... and, just out of interest, which health insurance company do you work for?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You might want to examine what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

I did not say that people are being denied treatment. I said that people are having to deny themselves treatment, or risk the financial future of their families. That IS happening. They ARE having to choose between getting help for their ailments, or keeping the heating on. That IS happening.

And your suggestion that those who are in such a situation are a relatively small number, when compared to the total population.... That simply does not matter SlapMonkey.

If ANYONE is having to make that choice, then the healthcare system is flawed and needs fixing, the money needs ejecting from the equation completely, so that service users never have to think about it.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I did not say that people are being denied treatment. I said that people are having to deny themselves treatment, or risk the financial future of their families. That IS happening. They ARE having to choose between getting help for their ailments, or keeping the heating on. That IS happening.

You presented your statement with an emergency situation, and closed the comment with this:

originally posted by: TrueBrit
NO ONE in this country, goes without surgery or treatment because it is too costly.

Many people in the states however, do just that.

The truth is, no one in the United States would have to skip an emergency surgery because of the cost, and no one would be denied the surgery because of an inability to pay. THAT is what I was pointing out, and THAT is why I specifically noted "emergency" in my comment.

But to introduce a strawman, I have seen people commenting that they've had to forego surgeries in a timely manner in your country, or have surgeries done on them by non-specialists. Hell, my orthopedic surgeon who did my shoulder surgery four months ago was a surgeon for two years in the NHS in England, and he's the one that explained to me that there are many surgeons tasked by the government to do surgeries that are not their specialties--he, as a shoulder specialist, could be tasked to do a hip replacement surgery. He said that this generally stems from a disproportionate amount of people needing surgeries versus available surgeons in the specialties.

I don't want my shoulder surgery done by a foot surgeon, just for the sake of "free" healthcare.

And your suggestion that those who are in such a situation are a relatively small number, when compared to the total population.... That simply does not matter SlapMonkey.

Bullsh*t it doesn't matter--you don't advocate for more taxes and government control over an industry whose purpose is to save lives and maintain health just because the relative few in the massive population are having a difficult time paying for something. That's not how the American government was designed to work, regardless of whether or not people in Britain agree with that or not.

I understand that philosophies on this matter differ, and that's fine, but to claim that the size of the negatively affected population doesn't matter is absolutely ridiculous, at least as it pertains to this particular subject.

If ANYONE is having to make that choice, then the healthcare system is flawed and needs fixing, the money needs ejecting from the equation completely, so that service users never have to think about it.

This is exactly the approach to this subject that perpetuates appeal-to-emotion arguments--instead of having big money funding the health insurance and healthcare industries, in your approach, you then have massive money (taxation via threat of imprisonment) funding a now-larger government that consistently proves that it is incapable of efficiently running anything with any fiscal responsibility.

I cannot responsibly advocate for such a system.

Obviously, keep being you and keep up your argument, but if these are the foundations on which you are going to try to persuade me or prove your point of view, you're not doing a very good job.

But keep in mind, I've never said that the health insurance (and as a result, the healthcare) system isn't flawed, but I certainly don't think that you have your finger on the solution button. Neither did Obama with the PPACA...and now our system is even more of a f**k up because of it.

Hopefully we can agree on that, at least.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I did not say that people are being denied treatment. I said that people are having to deny themselves treatment, or risk the financial future of their families. That IS happening. They ARE having to choose between getting help for their ailments, or keeping the heating on. That IS happening.

You presented your statement with an emergency situation, and closed the comment with this:

originally posted by: TrueBrit
NO ONE in this country, goes without surgery or treatment because it is too costly.

Many people in the states however, do just that.

The truth is, no one in the United States would have to skip an emergency surgery because of the cost, and no one would be denied the surgery because of an inability to pay. THAT is what I was pointing out, and THAT is why I specifically noted "emergency" in my comment.

But to introduce a strawman, I have seen people commenting that they've had to forego surgeries in a timely manner in your country, or have surgeries done on them by non-specialists. Hell, my orthopedic surgeon who did my shoulder surgery two months ago was a surgeon for two years in the NHS in England, and he's the one that explained to me that there are many surgeons tasked by the government to do surgeries that are not their specialties--he, as a shoulder specialist, could be tasked to do a hip replacement surgery. He said that this generally stems from a disproportionate amount of people needing surgeries versus available surgeons in the specialties.

I don't want my shoulder surgery done by a foot surgeon, just for the sake of "free" healthcare.

And your suggestion that those who are in such a situation are a relatively small number, when compared to the total population.... That simply does not matter SlapMonkey.

Bullsh*t it doesn't matter--you don't advocate for more taxes and government control over an industry whose purpose is to save lives and maintain health just because the relative few in the massive population are having a difficult time paying for something. That's not how the American government was designed to work, regardless of whether or not people in Britain agree with that or not.

I understand that philosophies on this matter differ, and that's fine, but to claim that the size of the negatively affected population doesn't matter is absolutely ridiculous, at least as it pertains to this particular subject.

If ANYONE is having to make that choice, then the healthcare system is flawed and needs fixing, the money needs ejecting from the equation completely, so that service users never have to think about it.

This is exactly the approach to this subject that perpetuates appeal-to-emotion arguments--instead of having big money funding the health insurance and healthcare industries, in your approach, you then have massive money (taxation via threat of imprisonment) funding a now-larger government that consistently proves that it is incapable of efficiently running anything with any fiscal responsibility.

I cannot responsibly advocate for such a system.

Obviously, keep being you and keep up your argument, but if these are the foundations on which you are going to try to persuade me or prove your point of view, you're not doing a very good job.

But keep in mind, I've never said that the health insurance (and as a result, the healthcare) system isn't flawed, but I certainly don't think that you have your finger on the solution button. Neither did Obama with the PPACA...and now our system is even more of a f**k up because of it.

Hopefully we can agree on that, at least.

People often believe that if government doesn't do something, it won't get done. Of course, this is just inaccurate and also downplays how charitable their fellow man can be when given an option to help.

Every year, I do a long distance motorcycle ride to raise money for Children's Miracle Network which is a non-profit that raises money for children's hospitals. There are about 175 children's hospitals in the network and this organization raises about $250 million/yr to support those hospitals. Myself and about 15 other guys have raised more than $500,000 over the years to support this cause.

What always struck me when visiting the hospitals in different cities is that pretty much all of these hospitals treat children WITHOUT regard to costs and if the parents can pay. It doesn't matter if these kids are dying of an incurable cancer or just need a cast for a broken arm. I met a family who had THREE kids with life threatening genetic illnesses who were treated at ZERO costs by these hospitals.

In addition, when looking at the history of many of the hospitals, they were often founded by evil rich people. These crazed and evil millionaires and billionaires had a moment away from raping and pillaging to put up tens and hundreds of millions of their fortune to start hospitals without government intervention. Who would have thought?

The meme that people go without generally ignores that there are plenty of charitable groups whose often step in to help those who cannot help themselves. I see Dentists all the time offering free check ups to kids or the elderly. Same with doctors offering physicals, etc.