Now That The Dust Has Settled From The Healthcare Debate

[Strike For The South]

Some questions....

1. Why was the selling of insurance across state lines not made legal? Or even brought up by anyone of importance?

2. Why is covering everyone UnAmerican but covering old people is sacred?

3. Why is mandating health coverage illegal or even a bad thing? Considering if you don't have it and go to the ER the bill is going to be footed by the coffers anyway, it only seems reasonable you pay a pitance, or we could get rid of emergencey mandatory care.....

4. Why do people look at the Scandanivian countries and think the exact same system could work here?

[HoreTore]

4. Why do people look at the Scandanivian countries and think the exact same system could work here?

Why on earth wouldn't our system work for you?

Are you suggesting that we're some kind of superhumans? Because that information is supposed to be classified...

[Strike For The South]

Why on earth wouldn't our system work for you?

Are you suggesting that we're some kind of superhumans? Because that information is supposed to be classified...

ideals aside, The logistic nightmare of covering 300 million people compared to 4 million is a start

[HoreTore]

ideals aside, The logistic nightmare of covering 300 million people compared to 4 million is a start

You have more people to cover, but you also have more money and more people to handle the logistics.

Besides, take a look at Norway on a map. Look closer and notice where people are living. Then come back and lecture me about logistics...

There really is no difference between covering 30.000, 3 million or 300 million people. More people actually make it easier to manage, like with all insurance.

[PanzerJaeger]

You have more people to cover, but you also have more money and more people to handle the logistics.

Keep in mind that not all people are equal. Economic disparity will change up the health care equation in the US relative to, say, Norway, quite a bit.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Some questions....

1. Why was the selling of insurance across state lines not made legal? Or even brought up by anyone of importance?

The bill writers weren't so much concerned about improving health care as they were about increasing government control over health care. And granting people more freedom to individually lower their health care costs by buying from other companies doesn't increase the government's power. Heck, it would've showed that the free market could have improved things.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Some questions....

1. Why was the selling of insurance across state lines not made legal? Or even brought up by anyone of importance?

2. Why is covering everyone UnAmerican but covering old people is sacred?

3. Why is mandating health coverage illegal or even a bad thing? Considering if you don't have it and go to the ER the bill is going to be footed by the coffers anyway, it only seems reasonable you pay a pitance, or we could get rid of emergencey mandatory care.....

4. Why do people look at the Scandanivian countries and think the exact same system could work here?

Britain has a universal system, and we have 70~ million. So it can't be that hard.

[Centurion1]

Europe is not the us.

Scandinavia is most definitely not the us.

for one thing its cold everywhere.

[Ironside]

2. Why is covering everyone UnAmerican but covering old people is sacred?

Old people vote and know enough to get that a pure private insurance system is going to cost them a fortune, since they are the main spenders. Somehow the rest simply went with them, mostly.
And by some people coverage is something you're supposed to earn, not be granted. Then you have the old taxes, goverment control, the goverment is EVIL and private enterprice is GOOD and will always succeed. If it fails, it's not true capitalism.



3. Why is mandating health coverage illegal or even a bad thing? Considering if you don't have it and go to the ER the bill is going to be footed by the coffers anyway, it only seems reasonable you pay a pitance, or we could get rid of emergencey mandatory care.....

As far as I get it, it's either the removal of "option: stupid" or a fear that it'll grant the EVIL goverment more power. Mostly the second I think.
Ridding of emergencey mandatory care would last until someone famous with no ID dies due to lack of care (since the person's finacial abillities could not be determined in time), so that's not really an option.



4. Why do people look at the Scandanivian countries and think the exact same system could work here?


ideals aside, The logistic nightmare of covering 300 million people compared to 4 million is a start

All Nordic coutries except Denmark have less population density than the US. And to relate to your nr 1, some of your states are in the size of a Nordic country, yet somehow going over state border is going to get it cheaper. So sizing up is going to be more efficient than the logistic increase by your own logic... :logic:


Keep in mind that not all people are equal. Economic disparity will change up the health care equation in the US relative to, say, Norway, quite a bit.

Not following you, are you saying that the US is poorer than all scandinavian countries? I mean the point with universial healthcare is that everyone, no matter how poor, is having access to decent healthcare.


Europe is not the us.

Scandinavia is most definitely not the us.

for one thing its cold everywhere.

True, you only have a resemblance of a true winter in half your country.

And that allergy to taxes, even when the private option is more expensive. :juggle2: And since perception of reality is more important that the reality itself, you cannot have a scandinavian system.

[KukriKhan]

I'll be 60 years old my next birthday. I was born at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, and Dad paid the hospital bill in installments. We had no health insurance - I don't think such a thing existed. I got appendicitis at age 9, got taken to the emergency room and operated on immediately, and spent 2 days in hospital. The ER, surgery & 2-day stay cost $910, roughly a month's take-home pay for Dad - he paid it in installments over 2 years.

Fast forward to 1972 (age 22), I was drafted into the Army, and had dozens of doctors, nurses and assistants looking at me to make sure I was fit. When I married, we were assigned a Family Practice (GP) Doc who we visited 2-3 times per year when wifey or kid would take ill. My own personal Medical File folder was very skinny, seldom getting hurt or ill.

By 1990, I was a civilian again, and had to decide whether to buy health insurance or not - my employer footing 80% of the premiums. That sounded like almost free money to me, (although I had to pay out some $$'s from my paycheck) so I signed up. At age 40, I decided I'd fathered enough children, and arranged to have a vasectomy. Health Plan DIDN'T pay, because the operation was voluntary. I paid $1500 for the procedure, out-of-pocket, and wondered if this Health Insurance racket was worth what I was paying.

So, to recap: I've had about 20 years of no health insurance, about 20 years of taxpayer-funded "socialized" Health Care (no expense to me), and about 20 years of employer-assisted Private Health Insurance, which I have never used, but pay for every paycheck. So: none, social, private.

"None", looking back was probably the most dangerous; "Social" got me the most medical attention, "Private" costs me personally the most, for seemingly little benefit. Looking forward to the next 20 years, I guess I return to "Social" (Medicare).

Which is better? With all its warts, and waiting times and cattle-call attention, I have to say "Social", the stuff taxpayers have provided me. It ain't so bad, and doesn't scare me, and is the only one of the 3 I've experienced that actually, reliably, took care of me. So, in conclusion, I don't mind paying via my taxes for everybody else to have the same "coverage" as me.

[Lemur]

Kukri, it's nice to hear thoughts from someone who has lived and experienced different vehicles for healthcare. Certainly more informative than the various and predictable ideological arguments.

Has anyone experienced both Brit-style national health and U.S.A.-style private healthcare? I'd like to hear contrasting impressions.

[Centurion1]

kukri you should have kept your tricare. my parents love our insurance. Army gets tricare right?

[Beskar]

I agree with Lemur, only place where I disagree is that Kukri's story completely confirmed my viewpoint and arguments.

I haven't experienced both, but I have a lot of American healthcare on television in documentraries and "Health stories".

In Britain, if you end up in an terrible accident, you get treated and everything for no cost. You might end up with a scar or two, but end of the road, the accident was it and it was over. You can also go in for check-ups and see about any complaints for completely free, you just walk in, make an appointment then go to it and see a doctor.

In the America system, the Hospital takes you to the clearers, the Health Insurance refuses to payout because of some opt-out clause in the fine print, and you end up paying $24000 and possibly a lot higher, just to get treated. In many circumstances, it was probably better on your loved ones if you simply just died in the accident, opposed to bankrupting the family. Unless, you are obviously some millionaire and you can easily afford such bills. If you wanted to go in for a check-up or address any health complaints, simply seeing the doctor to get a bandage put on you and hear the doctor tut a couple of times, costs around $150. Also, the doctor will encourage you to keep coming to see him, because each time you do, cha-ching.

[jabarto]

Oh for God's sake...


Some questions....

1. Why was the selling of insurance across state lines not made legal? Or even brought up by anyone of importance?

2. Why is covering everyone UnAmerican but covering old people is sacred?

3. Why is mandating health coverage illegal or even a bad thing? Considering if you don't have it and go to the ER the bill is going to be footed by the coffers anyway, it only seems reasonable you pay a pitance, or we could get rid of emergencey mandatory care.....

4. Why do people look at the Scandanivian countries and think the exact same system could work here?

1. Because it would be an unmitigated disaster for consumers and state rights.

2. I don't know.

3. Well, yeah, you can save money on healthcare by witholding it...

4. Because if Britain can form a functioning UHC system while rising from the ashes of its own, firebombed-demise, we have no excuse whatsoever.

[PanzerJaeger]

Not following you, are you saying that the US is poorer than all scandinavian countries? I mean the point with universial healthcare is that everyone, no matter how poor, is having access to decent healthcare.

There will be a greater percentage of people taking from the system without contributing than in most European countries.



So, in conclusion, I don't mind paying via my taxes for everybody else to have the same "coverage" as me.

Fair enough. The real question, though, is whether you support turning the United States in to the kind of cradle-to-grave welfare state that most European countries have become, with debt levels greater than Greece and government as big and intrusive as Britain. Further, do you support burdening your children and grandchildren with the crushing weight of massive unfunded entitlements and the economic drag that comes with VAT and other taxes that must be imposed to pay for them, especially considering the rise of China and the other BRIC nations? Do you want them to grow up accustomed to a far greater level of dependence on the government than you did?

(Those questions weren't rhetorical. You may be perfectly happy with the path we're on.)

[Ironside]

There will be a greater percentage of people taking from the system without contributing than in most European countries.

That would be irrelevant according to the "everyone according to their abillity and everyone according to their needs"-principle. Since you have the "Since everyone can succeed if they work hard, doesn't those who fail deserve it"-principle, it becomes irrelevant since it will always be those who are a net income loss for the state and/or society. And a tax based system would ensure that almost everyone do contribute, even if some do less contribution.


Fair enough. The real question, though, is whether you support turning the United States in to the kind of cradle-to-grave welfare state that most European countries have become, with debt levels greater than Greece and government as big and intrusive as Britain. Further, do you support burdening your children and grandchildren with the crushing weight of massive unfunded entitlements and the economic drag that comes with VAT and other taxes that must be imposed to pay for them, especially considering the rise of China and the other BRIC nations? Do you want them to grow up accustomed to a far greater level of dependence on the government than you did?

(Those questions weren't rhetorical. You may be perfectly happy with the path we're on.)

Debt levels has to do more with decent economical principles than tax levels. There's a reason your own debt is huge and growing, horribly noted during the election. Obama says: tax cuts for most, McCain says: Bigger tax cuts for all. Neither says, big spending reductions. The economy says, huge debt and a huge econimic crisis.

And at least China will suffer horribly from the same aging curse the western world suffers. And the linking with tax levels and economic drag is debatable. Sweden had it's best economic development during the tax increases and maintained it for more than a decade afterwards for example.

[Jolt]

Sweden had it's best economic development during the tax increases and maintained it for more than a decade afterwards for example.

PanzerJaeger's brain might collapse upon itself upon reading this. Heck, even Nazi Germany's economic rise was largely due to governmental control and direction (albeit in the wrong - rearmament - one), but I'm not too familiar with the subject. Likewise allowing free market to work on flawed areas only leads to further exploitation and inequality. Government and taxes are there to correct those inequalities. Or so also say my economic teachers.

I even had the pleasure of speaking to a Luso-American economy teacher (Who learned from the Chicago school, no less), and he says that it can be better for the USA Health-Care to have a governmental competitor. It can bring profit to the program and lower overall prices from private HC insurances.

[Centurion1]

every economy rebounds for war industry.

WW2 America
Reagan America
Civil War North.
WW1 America

etc. etc. etc.

Defense spending thrives in a capitalist system. the economy suffers as a result in other systems.

[KukriKhan]

There will be a greater percentage of people taking from the system without contributing than in most European countries.




Fair enough. The real question, though, is whether you support turning the United States in to the kind of cradle-to-grave welfare state that most European countries have become, with debt levels greater than Greece and government as big and intrusive as Britain. Further, do you support burdening your children and grandchildren with the crushing weight of massive unfunded entitlements and the economic drag that comes with VAT and other taxes that must be imposed to pay for them, especially considering the rise of China and the other BRIC nations? Do you want them to grow up accustomed to a far greater level of dependence on the government than you did?

(Those questions weren't rhetorical. You may be perfectly happy with the path we're on.)

Thanks for asking my opinion. The short answer is "No, I don't support such a system." The medium-length answer is: I disagree with the un-stated premise of your questions: I don't accept the inevitability of a slide into socialism just because I think that my rich country can afford the luxury of universal health care (note I say "health care", not health "insurance", which is what we have currently with the passed bill). I worry about the number of doc's, nurses and other medico's - I don't think we have enough yet to provide the scaled-up version of the system I was under in the Army.

A longer version answer will be forthcoming. You've given me much to think about, and I want to be clear in my answer.

[PanzerJaeger]

Thanks for asking my opinion. The short answer is "No, I don't support such a system." The medium-length answer is: I disagree with the un-stated premise of your questions: I don't accept the inevitability of a slide into socialism just because I think that my rich country can afford the luxury of universal health care (note I say "health care", not health "insurance", which is what we have currently with the passed bill). I worry about the number of doc's, nurses and other medico's - I don't think we have enough yet to provide the scaled-up version of the system I was under in the Army.

A longer version answer will be forthcoming. You've given me much to think about, and I want to be clear in my answer.

Thanks. I look forward to reading it. :bow: