US Health Care Reform

u can call it guranteed healthcare but free, no.

 

@ Exe - For your example.

Say you have 100 gold nuggets. You give 10 gold nuggets to the government. You have 90 nuggets. You get cancer. It costs 10 gold nuggets a week to keep alive. Your insurance will pay for 15 gold nuggets a month. How many months before you are out of nuggets?

Say you had a heart murmur similar to Jon and are uninsurable. You have nine weeks left to live.

Say you have 100 gold nuggets. You give 20 gold nuggets to the government. You get cancer. It costs 10 gold nuggets a week to live. National insurance pays for whatever gold nuggets a month you need.


@ ImaGine. - For your last point:

 

@eonmaster

The insurance companies would will be able to compete with the socialized health care much like the UPS and FedEx compete with the post office. I don't think we will see some kind of dramatic job loss.

 

What like?

The people in power do pretty much as they wish unless they are voted out next term. But the other sides are typically just the same.

The leading party is voted in by a majority, even though the majority of people are traditionalists who will vote for the same party their whole lives, regardless of what that party does.

Speaking out and acting out are ineffective. It might stir a bit of interest from like minded people, enough to do a little peaceful protest or a petition. But protesters are soon forgotten about, often attracting a crowd of riot police. Petitions are dismissed with empty promises of "We're trying to do ... , and much more than any other party. We have plans X Y and Z, which we believe will help to indirectly address your concerns. Look at these fudged statistics to prove it. So you should obviously vote for us."

 

"even though the majority of people are traditionalists who will vote for the same party their whole lives, regardless of what that party does." You identified the problem so where do you disagree?

 

here's the bottom line: in the US, you give your money to insurance companies. companies like profit. they will use every possible opportunity or excuse to keep your money, deny you coverage, and profit.

in a universal health care system, you give your money to the government, they give it back to you in health care. if your government is trying to steal/profit from you, well, that's just a corrupt government, which is another problem altogether.

 

Exactly. Properly setup government insurance company should/would not profit from rejecting to pay people for medical care or increasing the prices. Thats what sets it appart.

 

yeah, unfortunately there's still a lot of people stuck in the 1960's going "but zomg! that's socialist! it's a step towards COMMUNISM which is evil! private health care is CAPITALIST which is good and fair and will fix all the world's problems!"

 

The fear of Communism is that it gives the government way to much control. It gives the government the ability to dictate how you live your life. Not saying I believe in this but that is where some of these peoples opinion come from. They are afraid that if they give the government control over their health then the government can control more aspects of their lives.

 

Jshep: I agree with the idea that you re-introduced here but you have to bear in mind that the majority of people who are against the healthcare reform were for garbage such as the patriot act. Now which one gives the government more power? Universal healthcare or the Patriot Act?
Anyways I dont feel like this bill would significantly increase the control the government has over US citizens and I am more than willing to cut on other forms of government control to compensate for this (and go even further).

 

Well it seems like something the Federal government can use to bully State governments. Like they do with funding for state roads. A lot of times if a state doesn't support Federal regulations or laws they loose their federal funding for roads and law enforcement. With this who knows what could happen? - This is the opinion of those opposed.

 

On a side note:

Protesters are demanding justice for a man who was injured during fighting that erupted last week when audience members at a St. Louis-area aging forum began yelling about health care reform.

Backers of Kenneth Gladney, 38, of St. Louis, gathered Saturday at the offices of the Service Employees International Union for an event organized by the pro-limited government Tea Party coalition.

Gladney’s attorney, David Brown, received cheers from the crowd of about 200 people when he read a statement written by his client.

“A few nights ago there was an assault on my liberty, and on yours, too.” Brown read. “This should never happen in this country.”

Brown told the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was laid off recently and has no health insurance.

The irony. It burns.

 

I've read five (might be six) stories that are almost the same.

That, and the fact that some of the biggest opponents of NHS are on Medicare or Medicaid.

 

i can understand people fearing the idea of giving government too much control of their lives.

unfortunately, just because the government doesn't have control doesn't mean nobody does. currently, insurance companies are controlling your health. if you're paying medical insurance, you're pretty much signing your life away to a corporation.

so you can pick the lesser of the two evils. personally, i'd prefer the government. at least they *shouldn't* be trying to profit off your health, and the people have an indrect say on who's running it.

 

i have insurranced my teeths. Does that mean my teeths are screwed for good?

 

ASDF, I wouldn't call a government the lesser of two evils. I mean statistically speaking governments have caused more death, poverty, and destruction then any corporation ever could.

 

Well, technically speaking it wouldn't be free. It would still cost money but it would be universal and everyone would be paying the same bill regardless if they used it or a private health insurance. Honestly, the only difference is everyone can use it. Which in turn means everyone will eventually be paying more for it. This isn't like socializing the Post office, police departments, and fire departments. As medicine and treatments get more expensive the more taxes we will be forced to pay.

 

Jshep,

There is an edit button bro. Use it please.

 

The idea is to spread the cost over the ntire population. Most people wont need the expensive treatments hence the amount of money they donate over the years will be greater than the amount of money that they use for their medical care.
The money is always there its just that it is rarely being used effectively.

 

Most people would need special treatments. Look at the United States over all health and tell me there wouldn't be a lot of expensive treatments needed for those people.



Some body deleted their post.


Fenix