^^ where in the hell did that come from?

Quote :

"NOT TO MENTION, WE THE UNITED STATES HAVE THE MOST EXPENSIVE HEALTH SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. "

agreed, what we have now is a clusterfuck.

i don't want to fix it with an entitlement program, though.

3/14/2008 2:38:13 PM

Quote :

"ALL THOSE COUNTRIES THAT RANK HIGHER ON THE WHO HEALTH SYSTEM SCALE YEA THEY HAVE UHC "

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME

STOP BRINGING UP THE BULLSHIT HEALTH SYSTEM SCALE

ALL OF THOSE COUNTRIES ABOVE US?

THEY AREN'T FAT AS A FUCKING WHALE

SO THAT MAKES THEIR "HEALTH" BETTER

SANDDUMBFUCKER

3/14/2008 2:38:46 PM

If I am paying money into the SS system, then I had best get that returned to me. If not, then its just another tax which I am personally not willing to pay. Fuck socialism

3/14/2008 2:42:34 PM

haha. you think you will see any of that money back. how cute

3/14/2008 2:45:21 PM

Quote :

"Nazi's and italians aren't very abundant in iraq. Thats what the context of this argument is. Try to stay focused."

SandSanta

Sweet Jesus. Let me spell it out for some of you.

The point is that (1) BobbyNutrider brought up "brown people"; (2) many of the isms America has fought in the past obviously didn't involve these brown people that he's so fond of referring to; (3) we happen to be fighting another ism now--Islamofascism, in case some haven't noticed--that happens to have some brown people as followers; and (4) never miss a chance to bash America, am I right?

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2008 2:47:29 PM

Quote :

"However, public attitudes about the war in Iraq have turned more positive, which is a favorable development for McCain. A steadily growing number of Americans say progress is being made in Iraq. Moreover, 47% now favor keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until the situation there has stabilized, the highest percentage expressing this view in well more than a year."

This is neither relevant to the topic, nor relevant to the morality of the invasion of Iraq, especially when paired with your other fact:

Quote :

"Only 28% of the public knows that nearly 4,000 Americans have died in the Iraq war, and attention to the conflict has gradually diminished, a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found."

That is downright un-fucking-believeable.


It also underlines the biggest factor standing in the way of fiscal reform, and that is the apathy and ignorance (of these issues) of the average American voter. There are a number of reasons that are causing this, but none of them are excuses.


The war in Iraq is a massive financial issue to be dealt with, in addition to a myriad of moral issues and we can't ignore it or write it off as a "battle with islamo-fascism". The real question of the war in Iraq, as well as UHC and every other government program is, are we getting the right amount of bang for our buck? I think, even adjusting for the largesse that is natural with government programs, we're still falling short, but politicians will keep throwing money at the problem and the Fed will keep inventing money until the will of the American people turns against it.

3/14/2008 2:59:58 PM

Quote :

"theDuke866: true, BUT..."

True but what? Nothing you said after this represented a deviation from "No candidate presents an economically defensible position."

Quote :

"theDuke866: 1. from a fiscal perspective, universal/socialized healthcare is much more terrifying to me, because once it's out of the bag, it'll be almost impossible to put it back. we'll be stuck with it forever. win or lose, we'll be out of iraq someday, and whether it's 1 year or 10 years, that's a comparatively short period of time."

Out of Iraq and into Iran. Or Venezuela. Or any number of other TRILLION DOLLAR engagements.

Fuck.

It's just debt and blood right?

Quote :

"theDuke866: 2. i think that leaving iraq would be a disaster."

And would you characterize the current state of that country in any other terms?

Point: Clearly staying is also disaster.

My point stands:

Quote :

"Do any of the three really represent an economically defensible position? 1) Spend a trillion or so on Iraq and elsewhere. 2) Spend a trillion or so on Health Care. With Social Security coming due for millions of baby boomers, my position is this: Source of $$$ or GTFO."

3/14/2008 3:01:32 PM

^^ Hey, man, I didn't bring up fucking Iraq/War on Terror--how about putting the blame where it belongs? But with some of the moonbats, all roads of discourse lead to the war and Bush-bashing--and you know it.

^ QED.

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2008 3:04:50 PM

^^ We're not in Iran, we're probably not going to invade it. We don't have any substantial force in Venezuela (though I'm sure somebody is down there).

Iraq is improving daily and we do have a moral responsibility to fix what we have broken. As Colin Powell said, "you break it, you buy it." Unfortunately that price is being paid for the apathetic masses by the in the blood of a relatively small number of service members and, quite probably on the backs of they and their peer's economic futures.

I do believe that hope exists for Iraq and largely because we have one of the most brilliant minds the US military has produced in 50 years at the head of our forces now. I've been able to sit in teleconferences with GEN Petraeus and I can tell you the man is absolutely phenominal in his grasp of the details and realities he faces. It is a very pleasant contrast to those on both sides who spin results on the ground to their personal political agendas.



^ hey big guy, you need to get over the fact that every time someone replies to your comments, it doesn't mean they're attacking you personally. The war on terror is a relevant topic when we discuss how we spend our money. You, however, have stated numerous times that simply appealing to numbers isn't a justification for something and when you point out just how ignorant the masses you're referring to are (and I hope to God you believe that the fact that only 28% of the public has any grasp of the price we're paying in blood is a shameful fact) then your comments take up space without adding to the debate.

For the purposes of this debate, the question isn't the morality of the war, it is the conduct of military operations and our bang:buck ratio.

3/14/2008 3:14:50 PM

^ You can't be serious--"public attitudes" are directly related to funding of the war. It's only because of the public attitudes toward the war that funding for it has continued.

If people were truly as against the war as the media and others have portrayed and claimed, we would have been out of Iraq long ago. I'm not off topic at all.

3/14/2008 3:31:15 PM

Back on topic. With the war in Iraq being an inevitability for the next 24 months (the minimum estimate currently being put forth by the DoD for extraction of service members) do we really respond to that by implementing a health care program that will massively increase the federal debt and, at some point, possibly push the nation into depression?

3/14/2008 3:35:42 PM

Hooksaw

The majority of the 1 trillion $ spent in iraq is spent fighting brown people.

And thats what we're currently discussing. Not the billions spent more then half a century ago.

3/14/2008 4:12:30 PM

We're not discussing brown people at all actually.

3/14/2008 4:21:07 PM

No, you're discussing the federal budget

A noticeable part of which will be the Iraq war.

3/14/2008 4:25:03 PM

Correct. And it is going to go on for at least two more years, so it doesn't factor in the short term of our discussion. It is also something that we have far less discretion over -- since, as Duke pointed out, it is ongoing -- than something that hasn't even been started.


But he is right to say that a government program such as UHC would be ongoing. That sort of commitment is killing companies like GM right now. We assume that those economic laws do not apply to us because we have been the world superpower for so long, but when people start dumping dollars, something to that effect most certainly will apply. So, the question is, do we continue down the path we're on, or start making cuts, where possible, in order to bring our fiscal alignment back into order.

What good is UHC if the economy collapses?

3/14/2008 4:26:23 PM

^^^^ Case in point.

^^^ You may not be discussing "brown people," but he and some others here are--THEY CARE MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT THE BROWN PEOPLE! I KNOW THIS BECAUSE THEY CONSTANTLY TELL ME THEY DO!!!1

In any event, the following post by you in another thread was really on topic, JCASH.[/sarcasm] Get off your fucking high horse, will you?



http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=500489&page=10

3/14/2008 4:41:59 PM

^^yep


why, oh why, would anyone think this is a good idea? i mean, look at how it turns out every time we try a social experiment like this--the federal gov't fucks it away massively. why on Earth do people want to do it AGAIN, especially on such a large scale?

i mean, under the best of circumstances, Social Security is not a good program. Under less than ideal circumstances (retiring baby boomers), it's a crippling mess. Entitlement programs in general eat up a colossal amount of our budget (and I use that term loosely), and generally don't produce particularly good effectiveness (and some of them are a downright waste).

The fact that our current system is AFU is not justification to enact a different, yet still retarded, wasteful, and unconstitutional system.



...and once we have it, we will be stuck with it forever...just like nobody is willing to take it in the teeth in the short term to get rid of Social Security.

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 4:50 PM. Reason : asfd]

3/14/2008 4:49:07 PM

Quote :

"theDuke866: ^^yep"

Your and JCASHFAN's opposition to this smacks of irony.

As servicemen and recipients of effectively UNIVERSAL SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE, what relevant facts can you provide to demonstrate that a socialized healthcare system would not improve upon current conditions?

Quote :

"theDuke866: why, oh why, would anyone think this is a good idea? i mean, look at how it turns out every time we try a social experiment like this--the federal gov't fucks it away massively. why on Earth do people want to do it AGAIN, especially on such a large scale?"

Trillion-Dollar Social Experiments
Pre-Emptive Warfare
Universal Healthcare

If I may explain...

Perhaps the relative absence of complaint about access to basic health care among government officials (including *ahem* servicemen) combined with an economy clearly in freefall has the natives thinking that maybe--just maybe--such a system could benefit those who fund it.

When 50% of consumer bankruptcy filings are due to medical expenses and/or lost wages due to medical conditions, the public can be forgiven for finding comfort in a such crazy ideas. Most of the public doesn't enjoy the benefit of an employer-funded health plan for life.

How can a thirteen trillion dollar a year economy not afford to sustain it?

They stupidly wonder.

Many are unable to grasp exactly why the same government they are told not to trust to install a lightbulb, run a school, or provide them with health care should be trusted instead with a trillion-dollar occupation of a hostile nation, a multi-billion dollar a year killing apparatus, and the authority to detain and torture its own citizens.

They can be forgiven here, too.

It doesn't really make any sense.

3/14/2008 11:05:07 PM

Quote :

"As servicemen and recipients of effectively UNIVERSAL SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE, what relevant facts can you provide to demonstrate that a socialized healthcare system would not improve upon current conditions?"

Do the words VA Hospitals mean anything to you?

3/15/2008 12:27:11 AM

It sure does.

Does the word "relative" mean anything to you?

3/15/2008 12:34:05 AM

I have a lot of reasons for thinking that a socialist system would be an absolute disaster. But I'm too tired to spell them out for you right now. Suffice it to say that what works for France wouldn't work the same way for the US.

3/15/2008 12:51:06 AM

Quote :

"Your and JCASHFAN's opposition to this smacks of irony. As servicemen and recipients of effectively UNIVERSAL SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE, what relevant facts can you provide to demonstrate that a socialized healthcare system would not improve upon current conditions? "

I knew this one was coming...

Even aside from the VA hospital debacle, a lot of people bitch about Tricare...I personally have never really had any problems (although I basically never get sick, and somehow have avoided any major injuries over the last 4 years). The only real negative I've personally noticed is that you aren't free to pick what doctor or hospital you want (which is a pretty big concern).

However, those things--while valid--are not the crux of my argument. There are a few fundamental differences between the military and the nation at large (so to speak)...

First of all, the military is not a business. Our healthcare system is, of course, operated with costs in mind, but it is not a business.

Second, the vast majority of people using military healthcare are young and fit. The majority of Americans on the whole are overweight, unhealthy slobs.

Finally, the military healthcare has the luxury of being able to farm out work to the civilian world when it gets in over its head (i.e., they don't always have the latest and greatest equipment, or some specialized equipment, or even specialist physicians for that matter)--they take care of the easy 95% of medical care, then let someone else worry about it when the going gets tough. That's fine for their purposes, and is certainly more cost effective for Joe Taxpayer than having all kinds of taxpayer funded, expensive, special-case capability that is only rarely used...when they can just send those one-in-a-million cases out in town to a civilian doc.



as for the rest of your post, allow me to reiterate: The fact that our current system is AFU is not justification to enact a different, yet still retarded, wasteful, and unconstitutional system.


I'm not saying we don't need to fix what we have now. I'm saying that what Obama and Clinton want is not the answer.

3/15/2008 1:17:40 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: First of all, the military is not a business."

No shit.

It's a socialist agency of our Federal government.

Rightly or wrongly. It is.

Quote :

"theDuke866: Our healthcare system is, of course, operated with costs in mind, but it is not a business."

WHAT?!?

That was an awful neat trick, Duke! You just made TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in investment and infrastructure disappear with a simple click of the "Post Reply!" button.

How'd it feel?

I wonder what all these poor saps will do on Monday when the market opens on that news:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/515.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/516.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/513.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/510.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/511.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/514.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/512.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/522.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/526.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/524.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/523.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/521.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/520.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/525.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/527.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/528.html

I would also be curious how you explain a half-trillion dollars added to Medicare under a Republican administration...

Even if you were right (and you're obviously not, but whatever, we all say colossally stupid shit at some point) it would mean what exactly?

The whole goddamned problem is that there are people that can't afford health insurance or health care.

Businesses will only cover and serve those who will pay them.

How do you solve this problem?

Quote :

"theDuke866: Second, the vast majority of people using military healthcare are young and fit."

If they're fit, how can you say they're using healthcare?

Quote :

"theDuke866: The majority of Americans on the whole are overweight, unhealthy slobs."

*consults Fourteenth Amendment for "No Fatties" clause*

Hmm...

Still reads too much like "I'd rather borrow to kill foreigners than borrow to relieve the suffering of my own countrymen" for my personal taste.

Quote :

"theDuke866: Finally, the military healthcare has the luxury of being able to farm out work to the civilian world when it gets in over its head (i.e., they don't always have the latest and greatest equipment, or some specialized equipment, or even specialist physicians for that matter)--they take care of the easy 95% of medical care, then let someone else worry about it when the going gets tough. That's fine for their purposes, and is certainly more cost effective for Joe Taxpayer than having all kinds of taxpayer funded, expensive, special-case capability that is only rarely used...when they can just send those one-in-a-million cases out in town to a civilian doc."

This is conflict how??

Quote :

"theDuke866: as for the rest of your post, allow me to reiterate: The fact that our current system is AFU is not justification to enact a different, yet still retarded, wasteful, and unconstitutional system."

Agreed since day 1.

But now you brought Constitutional out to play. Should we start talking about banning the IRS, the Fed, and abolishing the income tax? Or would you prefer to keep this to the confines of so-called sane debate?

And while we're reiterating...

"what relevant facts can you provide to demonstrate that a socialized healthcare system would not improve upon current conditions?"

You've still not provided any relevant facts to this end despite your well of experience within such a system. If you knew what was coming, I'd expect you'd have come better prepared.

Quote :

"theDuke866: I'm not saying we don't need to fix what we have now. I'm saying that what Obama and Clinton want is not the answer."

What do you mean by "fix" that cannot possibly be construed as "make more socialist?"

[Edited on March 15, 2008 at 2:33 AM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on March 15, 2008 at 2:53 AM. Reason : ...]

3/15/2008 2:31:20 AM

Quote :

"WHAT?!? That was an awful neat trick, Duke! You just made TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in investment and infrastructure disappear with a simple click of the "Post Reply!" button. How'd it feel? I wonder what all these poor saps will do on Monday when the market opens on that news: "

Sorry, that was poor wording on my part. By "our", I meant the military's healthcare system. It is not a business.

Quote :

"I would also be curious how you explain a half-trillion dollars added to Medicare under a Republican administration... "

I wish I could explain that one with something other than "the current GOP is barely more than nominally related to what the party is supposed to be about".

Quote :

"If they're fit, how can you say they're using healthcare?"

what exactly do you mean? I mean, a 20 year old who's been medically screened and exercises at least several times per week still needs medical care...but a whole helluva lot less, on average, than a fatass 50 year old.

Quote :

"*consults Fourteenth Amendment for "No Fatties" clause* "

My disdain for fat, lazy slobs aside, I obviously don't think that we should FORCE them to be in shape. However, facts are facts--they are going to be more expensive to care for medically than, say, a young, in-shape person...or a non-overweight European, for that matter. In addition, non-fatbodies (read: you and I) shouldn't have to subsidize the health care of fatbodies, smokers, junkies, alcoholics, etc.

Quote :

"This is conflict how??"

It's not conflict. It's just another way that the military system has a built-in advantage over what would be necessary to do something similar for the nation at large.

i.e., it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

Quote :

"But now you brought Constitutional out to play. Should we start talking about banning the IRS, the Fed, and abolishing the income tax? Or would you prefer to keep this to the confines of so-called sane debate? "

You're preaching to the choir.

but just because we routinely stretch our interpretation of the Constitution to the ragged edge of what can be rationalized--and then flat out ignore it if that isn't enough--shouldn't green-light another huge defecation on the Constitution. Not that any meaningful number of people care, but the fact that federally socialized medicine is totally unconstitutional is still a valid point.

Quote :

"You've still not provided any relevant facts to this end despite your well of experience within such a system."

The first thing I said was that for me--as an individual, and as someone who has never needed the military system for anything besides routine dentistry, a flight physical, or one or two cases of strep throat or bronchitis--it's worked just fine.

There--that's my well of experience with such a system. My only other dealing was when my daughter was born--they farmed the prenatal care out to a civilian hospital because they deemed it a "high risk pregnancy", then insisted that she be seen at the Navy hospital once she was 1 month old (instead of continuing to be seen by her pediatrician). I've been generally satisfied with the care she's received there, but the fact that you can't choose your doctor or hospital is a pretty big deal.

Regardless, I could have the best experiences in the world, and that doesn't mean it's the right solution for our country.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know what is. Maybe an opt-out of some sort (potentially hand-in-hand with tax advantages for healthcare savings accounts, although I'd rather just shitcan and grossly simplify our tax code) would make everyone at least kinda happy, if it included a guarantee that the gov't healthcare program would absolutely have to be free-standing and could not be subsidized with other federal money.

Really, though, I'm not schooled enough in the other options to have a strong opinion on what WOULD be a good solution. I just know that I think what Obama and Clinton are pushing for is a terrible, terrible idea.

[Edited on March 15, 2008 at 3:08 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

3/15/2008 3:05:30 AM

3/15/2008 8:24:55 AM

Quote :

"Your and JCASHFAN's opposition to this smacks of irony. As servicemen and recipients of effectively UNIVERSAL SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE, what relevant facts can you provide to demonstrate that a socialized healthcare system would not improve upon current conditions?"

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The health care benefits provided to servicemen are part of the benefits package offered to service members when they sign up.

Furthermore, it is in the national security interests of the nation to retain a healthy military population. But that extends beyond merely providing health care to service members. In the Army at least, that means having a Physicians Assistant for each battalion (that means 1 PA for every ~ 400 Soldiers), a medic at the company level (1 medic for ~ 100 Soldiers) daily physical fitness, forced immunizations, and mandatory yearly check-ups.

On top of that, the military is generally geographically localized. For example, in North Carolina the are in Jacksonville, Goldsboro, and Fayetteville. The health care centers are located near the work locations of all the SMs and the system (as mentioned above) permeates all levels of the military organization. The necessary infrastructure to bring anything remotely like this to the general public is mind-blowing.

Also do not underestimate the impact of the fact that the majority of people that service members will deal directly with are also service members. Your PAs are Captains, your medics are junior enlisted and junior NCOs, your clinic supervisors are usually field grade officers. Even those employees who are civilian, buy somewhat into the military ethos / lifestyle. This could not be replicated in the greater population.

Last but not least, if I don't like my Tricare doctor, I am free to seek an independent doctor. This would be paid for out of pocket (sometimes TC will reemburse you) but I still have the opportunity to make that choice. I wouldn't have that choice with a UHC.

Quote :

"If they're fit, how can you say they're using healthcare?"

I thought the purpose of a UHC program would be to promote the overall wellness of the US population. It is a pretty narrow definition of "health-care" that assumes only a reactive role and you can bet your ass that the Federal Government would use the "well we have to pay if you get sick" card to impose all sorts of impositions on lifestyle choices at the individual level.

Other than that, what theDuke866 said.


But, ok, lets assume that UHC is a universal benefit and that it should be provided for. How do we accomplish this within budgetary constraints? A bankrupt US economy (and by that, I mean one where we cannot cover our debt obligations by simply selling it off to foreign governments who are willing to hold US dollars as assets) would not be in the health interests of anyone. Where do we go from there?

3/15/2008 10:56:59 AM

Quote :

"I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The health care benefits provided to servicemen are part of the benefits package offered to service members when they sign up. "

So?

Can health care benefits not be provided to citizens before the ink dries on their birth certificate?

Quote :

"Furthermore, it is in the national security interests of the nation to retain a healthy military population."

What good is national security to a nation of homeless people with outstanding medical bills?

Who do you expect bears those costs anyway?

Quote :

"The necessary infrastructure to bring anything remotely like this to the general public is mind-blowing."

No it isn't. Google "local hospital" and add any city and state for proof.

Quote :

"This could not be replicated in the greater population."

And it also had little to do with standards of care. Access is to healthcare AT ALL is the greater problem.

Quote :

"I wouldn't have that choice with a UHC."

Why wouldn't you?

Quote :

"But, ok, lets assume that UHC is a universal benefit and that it should be provided for. How do we accomplish this within budgetary constraints?"

How about the same way we financed the War in Iraq?

Borrow money from the Chinese and not raise taxes. It's just toilet tissue with Presidential portraits on it anyway (if the Fed's behavior is any indicator), no need to be concerned about such thing as who ultimately pays it back.

Of course I'm being facetious.

But when we didn't bat an eyelash as diving headfirst into that brilliantly destructive investment, I don't see how borrowing the same amount to prevent suffering in our own country can be characterized as a "crazy idea."

Quote :

"A bankrupt US economy (and by that, I mean one where we cannot cover our debt obligations by simply selling it off to foreign governments who are willing to hold US dollars as assets) would not be in the health interests of anyone. Where do we go from there?"

We're talking about a shell game. Nationalizing what we already have.

Employers would no longer be tasked with funding the health care needs of their employees. I don't have the hard numbers, but the offsets could be applied toward funding the UHC system.

As health care costs have DOUBLED in the last decade, I don't think the offset effect ought be minimized.

BTW - Before you look, no I'm not talking about any sitting Presidential candidates plan.

[Edited on March 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ...]

3/15/2008 2:39:42 PM

If you assume that the expense can be taken care of and the level of care would remain more or less the same (all of these somewhat doubtful to me)

Then you have to bring up the fact that this will give the government more control over our daily lives. Currently, its not the government's business on the surgeries youve had or the drugs you are taking. If they control healthcare they can make it their business. It would be a basis for outlawing smoking, trans fats, and even alcohol in an effort to "cut costs." Right now what you do with your body is the business of you and your Insurance/healthcare provider, your Insurance cant pass laws (although i bet they wish they could, lobby anyone?)

3/15/2008 3:26:26 PM

JCSASHFAN, GM's problems relate more directly to retarded union deals and the fact that they spent 20 years making low-quality, ugly cars. A truly apples and oranges comparison.

Secondly, arguing how UHC would bankrupt the government is pretty hilarious at this point seeing as how aside from having a free falling currency and still the most expensive healthcare system in the world, we're doing a pretty good job of bankrupting ourselves.

BUT SANDSANTA, WE DONT WANT TO ADD TO THE PROBLEM!11!

Yes, and thats why you should probably stop voting in people to power that clearly have no idea how to balance a budget.

I'll readily admit that we, at this point, can't afford UHC or a vast portfolio of other progressive programs that would make our country not only more competitive on a global scale, but drastically better for the majority of you: middle and lower middle class citizens. That doesn't mean that we should discard them with a shrug and continue to embrace fiscally retarded policies.

3/16/2008 6:52:01 PM

I have to agree we should stop voting for people that spend more than they get.

But how is UHC going to drastically improve my life
if it increases my taxes which reduces my freedom of choice on how i want to spend my own money?
and gives the government more basis and power to control my life?

3/16/2008 8:17:31 PM

AM I TALKING TO NO ONE?

In 2006, 50% of foreclosures were due to medical expenses.

ARMs may have taken a slice of that away since, but given that the actual number of foreclosures compared to all mortgages is relatively small, it wouldn't be a very big one.

THE HEALTH AND ECONOMIC CRISES ARE RELATED

[Edited on March 16, 2008 at 8:32 PM. Reason : ...]

3/16/2008 8:32:17 PM

the medical expenses because they were uninsured?

3/16/2008 8:55:23 PM

Quote :

"JCSASHFAN, GM's problems relate more directly to retarded union deals and the fact that they spent 20 years making low-quality, ugly cars. A truly apples and oranges comparison."

Well it isn't completely out of whack if you equate retarded union deals with questionable government programs (not necessarily UHC, but questionable programs in general). The shoddy products is a harder comparison but you could point out to a lack of quality control in vehicles equating to a lack of quality control in government services.

Quote :

"I'll readily admit that we, at this point, can't afford UHC or a vast portfolio of other progressive programs that would make our country not only more competitive on a global scale, but drastically better for the majority of you: middle and lower middle class citizens. That doesn't mean that we should discard them with a shrug and continue to embrace fiscally retarded policies."

I agree with this wholeheartedly. But the answer isn't throwing money at the health care problem, it is just the most politically feasible option at this point. Sadly. Voter awareness needs a turn around, I'm not sure what will cause it.

Quote :

"AM I TALKING TO NO ONE?"

Yes, you are. We've pretty much all agreed that it isn't affordable. A collapsing US dollar won't alleviate health care problems. Also, you haven't illustrated just WHY health care costs have gone up or HOW UHC will fix this. This is a topic for another thread, go ahead and start it.

3/16/2008 9:54:44 PM

^^ Given the number of uninsured in the country (that'd be millions), is it so hard to believe?

Yes, largely because they lacked insurance.

That's the very concept of insurance.

When you don't have it, your medical bills are astronomically more expensive. Especially for major medical care.

3/16/2008 11:25:05 PM

The why is pretty easy.

The US pays the most for medical overhead of any industrialized nation. Ironic, considering thats the reason most of you rant against UHC in the first place right? Government causing too much bureaucracy and overhead? Couple that with the fact that the way insurance is structured actually isn't really free market to begin with, in that, you don't really have a choice when it comes to out of system medical just like you not having a choice when it comes to which health provider your company chooses.

In essence, everything pointed out in this thread about the pitfalls of UHC actually describes the system this country operates under right now.

3/17/2008 12:41:18 AM

and so you think moving to a system which will REALLY implement that will make it better?

how about we actually take away the fucking gov't regulation that has driven costs up so fucking dramatically in the first place? Government regulation, in the case of health care, has done what it always does. it drove up cost and decreased service. It will only get worse with UHC

3/17/2008 12:44:18 AM

^^Maybe you missed it the first two times.

Allow me to re-reiterate:

Quote :

"The fact that our current system is AFU is not justification to enact a different, yet still retarded, wasteful, and unconstitutional system. "

[Edited on March 17, 2008 at 12:45 AM. Reason : ^^]

3/17/2008 12:44:47 AM

^^^^
if they dont have insurance then they either

A) made the choice not to have it and decided to spend money on their big brand new house they cant afford the mortgage for

or

B)cant afford insurance. I understand that insurance is expensive and some people just cant afford it due to unemployment or other problems. But i think education and helping people get good jobs that they can keep is a better alternative than UHC.

^^Yeah, I would be really interested to see healthcare go free market. It would be interesting to see just how far prices would go down.

3/17/2008 7:41:04 AM

message_topic.aspx?topic=456889 for UHC

3/17/2008 3:12:41 PM

Healthcare is free market currently, actually.

Just not free market for you.

Your employer is free to chose whoever it wants as a provider.

I mean do any of you actually have any idea about what you're talking about besides duke and gamecat?


I especially enjoyed the gentlemen that posted how care was free if you couldn't afford it. Do an experiment: the next time you get assigned a prescription medicine, try and get it without paying for it yourself. Also, please 2 research exactly what is covered by medicaide.

3/17/2008 3:51:47 PM

Not being explicitly laid out in the constitution does not make anything unconstitutional. If that were the case then EVERY law that isn't passed as an amendment would be unconstitutional. Now if there was anything in the constitution that said "THE GOVERNMENT WILL NEVER PROVIDE FOR THE WELFARE OF ITS CITIZENS" then I'd agree with you that it's unconstitutional.

3/17/2008 3:55:46 PM

Quote :

"SkankinMonky: Not being explicitly laid out in the constitution does not make anything unconstitutional."

wat

i'm pretty sure there's something in there about providing for the general welfare

Quote :

"SandSanta: Just not free market for you."

Not to nitpick, but you can opt out of most (if not all) employer plans and go to BCBS or whoever is approved in your state.

It's a freer market than you present, but it's still not a free market. You can't get insurance from a company licensed in a different state that's a cheaper alternative is the classic example.

[Edited on March 17, 2008 at 10:40 PM. Reason : ...]

3/17/2008 10:36:31 PM

Quote :

"I'm not schooled enough in the other options to have a strong opinion on what WOULD be a good solution"

Here's what I think is a good solution:

Get rid of...

EMTALA
the tax-exempt status of employer-provided health insurance
insurance mandates
Medicaid and Medicare
HIPAA and all related regulations.

free market for health care = greater recognition of individual rights by the govt

3/17/2008 11:00:12 PM