|
blondgecko
Moderator
Jul 27, 2006, 7:08 AM
Post #1 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
So I was thinking about this while sitting in the hospital waiting room last week...
In a socialised health care system, part of everybody's tax goes towards healthcare. So, the people who don't get sick are effectively subsidizing those who do.
In a health insurance situation, people who can afford it pay an annual fee to be assured medical care if they need it. So, the people who don't get sick are effectively subsidizing only the subset of those who do who can afford to buy health insurance - as well as feeding the profit-margins of the insurance companies.
I know which system I prefer.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jul 27, 2006, 7:14 AM
Post #2 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
i prefer the social health care.
here we have a combination of both systems. basicly everybody gets social healt care, but some medicines and treatments are not covered (like special tooth fillings, stuff like that). so you have the option of paying extra insurance to cover those "not necessary" costs.
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jul 27, 2006, 7:39 AM
Post #3 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
My tax money currently goes to fund medical reasearch that only benefits those who can afford health insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Jul 27, 2006, 12:26 PM
Post #4 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
My insurance money current goes to fund medical procedures on people who have no health insurance and waited until it was an emergency to seek treatment because they couldn't afford a basic check-up.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Jul 27, 2006, 1:11 PM
Post #5 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
My insurance premiums go to fund the health care insurance that pays for my pregnant wife's pre-natal care and, in a couple of weeks, pay for her to deliver my second child. The same premiums will pay to take care of that child, from that point forward. Hopefully just for regular check ups, as they did for my first child. New born children go to the doctor quite a bit. My insurance premiums so far have done little for me, as I rarely get sick (except that one time in December when I had a table saw accident and had to go to the emergency room, a story I really should post up here as its quite entertaining). I am fortunate enough to be in a position to afford to have a couple of kids. But to be fair, I worked my ass of to get here. I don't go fucking every road whore I can and get each one pregnant (thereby increasing the number of uninsured people that tax the system). My wife doesn't pop one out every 10 months so that she can increase her welfare checks.
Now, my tax dollars, on the other hand, go to pay for a whole shitload of things that I have no need for, and a whole lot that I do. I don't need the Endowment for the Arts any more than I need an unnecessary war in the Middle East. I do need roads.
|
|
|
|
|
bakedjake
Jul 27, 2006, 1:31 PM
Post #6 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2003
Posts: 3755
|
I'm not going to take a specific stand either way. There are benefits to both systems.
However!
I've just spent the last couple month's in and out of emergency rooms. It came to the point of renal failure and having a catheter stuck inside me for 4 weeks while every referral I was given for follow-up care wouldn't accept me lest I had health insurance. This was a very difficult situation for myself. What between the malaise of my condition and the incredible insensitivity [or maybe better stated, the incredible greed] of the health care system I was at a complete and total loss.
Whether good or bad, there is justifiably no reason anyone in a land as productive and wealthy as ours that any child, woman or man [my preferred priority list] shouldn't have access to at least minimum, affordable health care. At minimum a preventive health care program would save us future costs.
|
|
|
|
|
boondock_saint
Jul 27, 2006, 2:11 PM
Post #7 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
I think what's many many times worse than the healthcare system here is the power the drug-manufacturing lobby has. They've got people so brainwashed that I've heard how drugs from Germany are "bad and unsafe" because their FDA doesn't even really test them. Are you f***ing kidding me??? The Germans are more pedant with any damn thing they do than anyone else I know of. Then I usually ask if it's possible that the drug companies don't want drugs imported from EU & Canada so they can jack up the prices and the response I get is, "that sound like a conspiracy theory, why would they do that?" I don't get how some people manage to survive. Seriously.
As far as healthcare goes I think we should have a socialized system where everyone has to do their part to stay in healthy and in shape, with excercise programs every morning. And if you fail to do it properly your TV can remind you ... Smith! 6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Jul 27, 2006, 2:15 PM
Post #8 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
I wanted to add one more thing. I would gladly accept government subsidized health care for those that truly needed it if our government would fund it with money that they otherwise spend on useless programs. I know it would be difficult for all come to some sort of agreement on what is really uneeded. I also know that such a program would be frought with a ton of red tape. Money like that to politicians is like shit to flies.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 27, 2006, 2:46 PM
Post #9 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
I would accept a socialized system if I, as a tax payer, were allowed to "opt out" of the program and not have to pay into it. IOW, allow me the option of keeping the money I'd have spent in taxes to fund it, and let me spend that money as I see fit.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 27, 2006, 3:00 PM
Post #10 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I would certainly support a well crafted public health care system. But legal reform must go hand in hand with it. Serious legal reform.
With the trial lawyers and drug companies standing in the way, its not bloody likely that a viable program would emerge anyway.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
lagr01
Jul 27, 2006, 3:11 PM
Post #11 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Posts: 2417
|
In reply to: I would accept a socialized system if I, as a tax payer, were allowed to "opt out" of the program and not have to pay into it. IOW, allow me the option of keeping the money I'd have spent in taxes to fund it, and let me spend that money as I see fit.
Bingo.
The key here is the freedom of choice. But that doesn't fit the Orwellian vision of the state that some "socialized" minded people have.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 27, 2006, 3:29 PM
Post #12 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: I would accept a socialized system if I, as a tax payer, were allowed to "opt out" of the program and not have to pay into it. IOW, allow me the option of keeping the money I'd have spent in taxes to fund it, and let me spend that money as I see fit. Bingo. The key here is the freedom of choice. But that doesn't fit the Orwellian vision of the state that some "socialized" minded people have.
If you can opt out of health care then I should be able to opt out of military invasion programs.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jul 27, 2006, 3:37 PM
Post #13 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
In reply to: I would accept a socialized system if I, as a tax payer, were allowed to "opt out" of the program and not have to pay into it. IOW, allow me the option of keeping the money I'd have spent in taxes to fund it, and let me spend that money as I see fit.
And while we are at it, I would like to selectively opt out of paying taxes that go to fund any program or government undertaking that I do not support. Let those who support the war in Iraq pay taxes for it :) And I don't want to put any money into Social Security, I'd rather give it directly to my parents :) Oh, and there was that pork stuff in the latest bill, I want to opt out of that, too!
How is medical care fundamentally different from all other things that are funded through taxpayer money? Why should there be an opt-out for medical stuff and not for other tax-payer-funded stuff?
I would like to see healthcare coverage for all... I also realize that it won't quite work the way I would like it to work... and that equal access is an utopian idea.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jul 27, 2006, 4:08 PM
Post #14 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
personally, I would like to see a more socialized health care system in the United States.
Our system right now is seriously skewed against the lower classes, bureaucracy and corporations are getting very rich off of the system, and the new bankruptcy laws just passed will make it even more difficult for the uninsured to get back on their feet following a major health crisis.
It is unexcusable that in the Americas many parents' only way of treating their kinds' cancer is to put a goddamned donation jar on the counter at the local 7-11!
BUT, the flipside is this: we as Americans are an unhealthy people, much more so nationally than European nations and Canada, who have socialized healthcare. We eat in excess, watch TV, don't excercise, and are getting very fat.
If you think we have a health crisis now, wait until the millions of today's overweight grade-schoolers hit their 30s!
Ultimately, this situation is very American. We want federal intervention OUT of our lives, we want the right to eat trans-fats (which are in the process of being banned in Europe and Canada). Americans have the inherent RIGHT to live as unhealthily and excessive as they want, with no intrusion from the government and then to pay for later health bills themselves, with no help from the government.
The irony, of course, is that many of the rising numbers of obesity are among the lower classes who cannot afford insurance...
the current system is not sustainable
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 27, 2006, 4:26 PM
Post #15 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: I would certainly support a well crafted public health care system. But legal reform must go hand in hand with it. Serious legal reform.
"Well crafted" is the operative term here.
One key factor is timing. Looking back over the last 70 years or so, it seems that major social programs were initiated only after the situation had become dire - New Deal, Great Society, etc. The overall situation has to be bad enough for a significant portion of mainstream America, before the government can apply heavy handed legislation. The Brits started their program while they were rebuilding, right after WWII ended. - Timing. :wink:
Another aspect is cost. Our federal government has repeatedly shown an inability to manage social programs in a fiscally responsible manner. A prime example is Medicare/Medicaid. Here's an interesting link on costs http://www.chernoffdiamond.com/...emy/appendix%20d.asp
In reply to: Since 1980 the cost of public programs has increased 37% faster than the cost of private sector programs. Per capita expenditures on these programs are more than twice the cost for the private sector.
Lastly, we have the powerful lobbies (Pharmaceutical, Lawyer, Healthcare, Insurance) to deal with. These industries stand to loose a huge amount if a national healthcare system is implemented. And they have a little thing called the Fifth Amendment on their side.
Even without the current level of polemic hostilities on Capital Hill, I see implementing a Universal Healthcare system as being nearly impossible.
IMO, it's got to get worse before change is possible.
Edited to add - Comparing choosing healthcare to choosing national defense is apples and oranges. Two completely different dynamics.
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Jul 27, 2006, 4:31 PM
Post #16 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
Think about this: Insurance IS "socialization", whether private or public. It's supposed to spread the risk among a large group so that everyone pays something and nobody suffers catastrophic loss. The widest socialization would be the whole population covered at the same price. If it were done by a single private company we'd call it monopoly. If it were done the the government we'd call it national health care.
Personally, I'd prefer that insurance be done by private companies, but something certainly needs to be done about moral hazard. Companies tend to cherry pick individuals and individuals tend to purchase only if they need treatment. Auto insurance is mandatory, why not health insurance? There's no hue and cry for the government to provide auto insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jul 27, 2006, 6:18 PM
Post #17 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: Auto insurance is mandatory, why not health insurance?
Then people with no health insurance could be arrested and receive health care in a privatized prison funded by tax dollars. Seems like it would be cheaper to give everyone a free checkup once a year.
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Jul 27, 2006, 6:19 PM
Post #18 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: Auto insurance is mandatory, why not health insurance?
Then people with no health insurance could be arrested and receive health care in a privatized for profit prison funded by tax dollars. Seems like it would be cheaper to give everyone a free checkup once a year.
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Jul 27, 2006, 7:16 PM
Post #19 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
What's the difference in the dynamics? In both cases, it's the government deciding how to spend my money without asking me. Depending on your point of view, either could be more important than the other. I think a larger number of tax payers' lives would be more affected (positively) by a good socialized medical system than by the war in Iraq, for instance.
In reply to: In reply to: I would certainly support a well crafted public health care system. But legal reform must go hand in hand with it. Serious legal reform. Another aspect is cost. Our federal government has repeatedly shown an inability to manage social programs in a fiscally responsible manner. A prime example is Medicare/Medicaid. Here's an interesting link on costs http://www.chernoffdiamond.com/...emy/appendix%20d.asp In reply to: Since 1980 the cost of public programs has increased 37% faster than the cost of private sector programs. Per capita expenditures on these programs are more than twice the cost for the private sector. Edited to add - Comparing choosing healthcare to choosing national defense is apples and oranges. Two completely different dynamics. |
|
|
|
|
kubi
Jul 27, 2006, 8:19 PM
Post #20 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
In reply to: I would accept a socialized system if I, as a tax payer, were allowed to "opt out" of the program and not have to pay into it. IOW, allow me the option of keeping the money I'd have spent in taxes to fund it, and let me spend that money as I see fit.
I'd like to do the same thing for the war in Iraq, farmer subsidies, and roads in every single southern state (since I don't envision myself going there any time soon). Oh, also any federally funded education in any state but the one I decide to raise my children in.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 27, 2006, 10:22 PM
Post #22 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: If you can opt out of health care then I should be able to opt out of military invasion programs.
Easily done.... don't enlist.
|
|
|
|
|
jpdreamer
Jul 27, 2006, 10:22 PM
Post #23 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 232
|
Economically, the primary problem with the current system is it encourages those without insurance to delay treatment untill the situation has gotten much worse, causing something which could have been treated cheaply to end up costing much more. Why not legislate that an exam, including any bloodwork or anything required to confirm diagnosis, be only a nominal fee (say $5 or $10)? At least then you'd avoid the major economic pitfalls of the current system of private insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 27, 2006, 10:26 PM
Post #24 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Auto insurance is mandatory, why not health insurance?
Auto insurance is only mandatory if you actually.... well... DRIVE AN AUTO.
Subtle difference, to be sure, but real nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jul 27, 2006, 10:31 PM
Post #25 of 96
(1927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: I would accept a socialized system if I, as a tax payer, were allowed to "opt out" of the program and not have to pay into it. IOW, allow me the option of keeping the money I'd have spent in taxes to fund it, and let me spend that money as I see fit. Such as on health insurance? I wonder if I currently spend as much health insurance as I might spend on taxes to support pulic healthcare.
My private insurance premiums don't go up in relation to how much money I make, j_ung. If I make $40,00 a year or $140,000, I still pay the same monthly premium. Not true for a socialized system in which I pay 10% (or whatever number you want) of my gross income.
Tell me why, in a socialized system, I should pay, say, $14,000 a year to get the same services I did when I paid $4,000 a year?
(^^ Based on 10%, $40,000, and $140,000.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
