[QUOTE='[sluggo];42255646']In theory it allows for competition, competition = better service and innovation.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHAHA
I get threatened by my healthcare company that I'll get dropped every time I go see the doctor, even if it's just a cough. Competing my ass, they're all equally fucking terrible.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;42255549]I've never really been clear on this. Is Obama's healthcare plan really something that'll "destroy the middle class" and "make it impossible to get the coverage [I]you[/I] deserve"? Because that's all I've been hearing, and people who I ask who support it only defend it with stuff like "Oh, don't listen to those attack ads, it's exactly what we need!" without ever going into specifics.[/QUOTE]
that's because it's thousands of pages of double-talk that no one ever read.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42259228']Firstly, I am referring to a large portion of the population that would not sustain itself with healthcare (weather that be the old, infirm, poor, tax cheats, whoever). Justified or not a large portion of the population is not sufficient in that way. Do you know why they instated the Individual mandate within the reform bill? Because of people who weren't self sufficient. People weren't buying health insurance and were forcing costs onto everyone else (although they were also bankrupting themselves).
Shift this onto the taxpayer completely, and do you think that the amount of people cheating will go down. It won't go down when they are no longer in ANY danger from it. It would be like other programs now.
The very rich would support everyone else, they have lawyers.
The middle class and lower echelon of the upper classes would again fund everything for those who can't or won't fund themselves.
Anyway the problem with a larger population (aside from what I just listed) is just plain management, instead of shifting a smaller system over and dealing with little backlash, you are shifting a multi-billion dollar industry onto the government.
You would have to shut down health insurance companies and lay employees off. They would become almost useless aside from supplementary insurance for greater care. The people who want that can afford it be themselves.
You would have to raise everyone's taxes hugely. Not exactly easy or good for the economy.
How long would it take to transition? How would you do all of this? It is just not really realistic. The cost is to great.[/QUOTE]
What is your opinion on abolishing health insurance period? What about forcing health services to be non-profit?
[QUOTE=butre;42260681]there are more people in europe but there's not one big unit managing everything about healthcare in europe. that's part of the problem with obamacare, it would suggest one centralized unit managing 315 or so million people worth of healthcare rather than some 50 units managing an average of 10 million people each. we'd be taking on 3000% of the work that each european healthcare agency does[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean by 'unit', but assuming you mean 'agency' or 'department', that is hardly a problem in need of fixing. The US is, conveniently enough, already divided up into 'units'. Unless you thought I was suggesting literally having one guy in a suit dictate every minute aspect of national healthcare policy.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;42261574]What is your opinion on abolishing health insurance period? What about forcing health services to be non-profit?[/QUOTE]
The former is essentially single payer (national) gov ran health care. It would be a better option then obamacare...
The latter can not happen in the way you suggest. Force health services (of which most of the for profit ones are investments) to be non profit and they close the doors- liquidate their assets and find a new line of business. Have you ever heard of stock in a non profit company? Would you buy it if it did exist? Keep in mind you still have all the risk of losing your investment and no hope at all for a positive return...
[QUOTE=Megafan;42257461]You know there are more people in Europe than in the US, right?[/QUOTE]
Is that counting Turkey?
[QUOTE=Sally;42263603]Is that counting Turkey?[/QUOTE]
even if you counted only the people in the EU, Europe still has far more people in it than the US
why do people think it's gonna be impossible for the USA to handle an NHS yet if each country in Europe has its own then it is cheaper? It's wastage - if Europe was a single country then its healthcare costs would be cheaper (not advocating for or against a European superstate here, just saying)
the USA is one country, and could handle an NHS far better due to its economy of scale. Besides, you guys already know that you spend more per capita, so if that's true, Americans will have more disposable income despite being taxed more to fund this NHS, therefore this must be established not only for the sake of people's health, but for the economy too. (if the USA's new NHS is adequate people would stop buying private health insurance)
I REALLY really don't understand the logic that some of you apply! I think in fact that a lot of you have your own ideologies that you stick to despite everything else
[QUOTE=Sally;42263603]Is that counting Turkey?[/QUOTE]
The EU has nearly 508,000,000 people among the member states, and if you expand that to Europe in general (excluding Russia and Turkey), that increases to almost 600,000,000.
The US by comparison has a population of about 316,000,000.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;42255241]Lets celebrate that our bill will get shot down in the senate!
WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO![/QUOTE]
At this point they need to take what they can get
Private healthcare can't work for obvious reasons. They need profit. It's kinda the point of having a business. If it's run by the country then there's no need to get that profit out of sick people.
But knowing the states, they would probably give that extra money to Israel to kill more people, hooray~
I'm no expert in any of this stuff and I will probably get dumbs for this, but I feel like it will just become the same mess of government contracts and exploitation that the armed forces has become. I don't think it will be cheaper, or better, in any way if this passes. That said I really don't like the way it is now either. I can't think of a good solution for this and it seems that no one else can either.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;42266461]I'm no expert in any of this stuff and I will probably get dumbs for this, but I feel like it will just become the same mess of government contracts and exploitation that the armed forces has become. I don't think it will be cheaper, or better, in any way if this passes. That said I really don't like the way it is now either. I can't think of a good solution for this and it seems that no one else can either.[/QUOTE]
The provision that prevents insurance companies from denying you coverage for 'pre-existing conditions' already makes the situation better, even if only in one way.
[QUOTE=Megafan;42266511]The provision that prevents insurance companies from denying you coverage for 'pre-existing conditions' already makes the situation better, even if only in one way.[/QUOTE]
What's it gonna matter if you can't afford it? For all those people like me living in pseudo-poverty who don't get benefits but can't afford coverage?
[QUOTE=frozensoda;42266534]What's it gonna matter if you can't afford it? For all those people like me living in pseudo-poverty who don't get benefits but can't afford coverage?[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying it'll help the people who were affected by that denial of coverage, but could afford it.
Don't start criticizing me, it's not my damn policy.
[QUOTE=Megafan;42266885]I'm just saying it'll help the people who were affected by that denial of coverage, but could afford it.
Don't start criticizing me, it's not my damn policy.[/QUOTE]
I didn't mean to sound critical. I'm sorry if my post came off that way. I thought maybe you knew something about that case that I didn't.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;42266900]I didn't mean to sound critical. I'm sorry if my post came off that way. I thought maybe you knew something about that case that I didn't.[/QUOTE]
It's true a lot of aspects of the law were influenced by bad compromises and corporate interests, so in that way you are right that it won't help enough people who previously couldn't get the care they need.
It's not single-payer, there's no public option, it is not the 'national healthcare system' some people seem to think it is. There are *some* benefits to it, but it's not what I would have wanted.
[QUOTE=Xakoro;42255554]What about lots of competing private systems?[/QUOTE]
Has ended with overpriced healthcare in the US. Ideally you want a public heathcare system with a care premium buyable from insurance companies.
Not healthcare premium per see, but stuff like access to a better hospital room, single bed rooms and things like that.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;42267230]Has ended with overpriced healthcare in the US. Ideally you want a public heathcare system with a care premium buyable from insurance companies.
Not healthcare premium per see, but stuff like access to a better hospital room, single bed rooms and things like that.[/QUOTE]
This is pretty much how we run it in the UK. Base care is totally free (tax payers more than make it up). There are queues, the wards are usually quite full, but it works fine. If you have the money you can opt-in to a premium care service like BUPA which basically guarantees you get a good room if you want it, and doesn't rely on the NHS waiting lists as much for certain (possibly all?) things.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42255335']I think the problem with obamacare (yes I am going to call it that), is that it is just to complex. The bill is basically the result of two opposite ideologies trying to compromise and in order to do so sticking on as much random crap as they could possible think of. It is trying to walk the fine line between a social system and a private system by so over regulating the private system that it will seriously damage the economy. I government is trying to run it all through regulation.
A one payer system would work (despite expenses), a private system would work (morally or not), but a jury rigged combination of the two won't. Just pick one, because this is going to do nothing but raise prices and damage industry. That is the exact opposite of what REFORM should do.[/QUOTE]
The private system obviously does not work and it's ignorant to believe that.
[QUOTE=preebird;42267965]The private system obviously does not work and it's ignorant to believe that.[/QUOTE]
Care to explain?
[QUOTE='[sluggo];42267989']Care to explain?[/QUOTE]
I think he's saying that because the current system is the private system and only an idiot would think the US's health care system is good.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;42268250]I think he's saying that because the current system is the private system and only an idiot would think the US's health care system is good.[/QUOTE]
I understand, I was just curious if he was going to elaborate on what he said. Just posting "___ is bad" with no explanation isn't that smart.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;42258148]And the individual mandate is entirely enforceable, the government just tacks on a huge bill to your income tax return at the end of the year if you can't prove you have an "acceptable insurance policy."[/QUOTE]
iirc the fee is significantly smaller than healthcare coverage
but yeah the mandate was just a concession to healthcare lobbyists. Neither party even wanted it. Very good example of just how much corporate money is in politics. You can't pass a law that says "you can't be dicks anymore". Suddenly the money they earned on these sleazy policies is worth giving a damn about, and it's the government's responsibility to get it to them another way.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42268467]iirc the fee is significantly smaller than healthcare coverage
but yeah the mandate was just a concession to healthcare lobbyists. Neither party even wanted it. Very good example of just how much corporate money is in politics. You can't pass a law that says "you can't be dicks anymore". Suddenly the money they earned on these sleazy policies is worth giving a damn about, and it's the government's responsibility to get it to them another way.[/QUOTE]
Actually the mandate is statistically required for this kind of bill...
By this I mean- if your overall goal is to lower costs while at the same time increasing coverage then you have only one real option. "Bulk"buying (that is in theory everyone now buys insurance) would decrease premimum costs overall. You're essentially having the healthy (who before did not bother with coverage) pay more so the unhealthy can pay the same (or even less).
That's the general theory though IMO it won't work due to the monopoly the health care system now enjoys.
[quote]You're essentially having the healthy (who before did not bother with coverage)[/quote]
Pretty sure that's bullshit. Everyone needs health insurance whether you're healthy or not, in case of accidents.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;42270438]Pretty sure that's bullshit. Everyone needs health insurance whether you're healthy or not, in case of accidents.[/QUOTE]
that's super disconnected from reality. I'd love for my girlfriend to be covered. But she's a college student with a minimum wage job, who can't claim independent from her father who provides no financial support until she's 24, has a kid, gets married, or joins the army. The reality is a lot of people can't afford it.
Human lives mean nothing to these guys, do they?
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42270497]that's super disconnected from reality. I'd love for my girlfriend to be covered. But she's a college student with a minimum wage job, who can't claim independent from her father who provides no financial support until she's 24, has a kid, gets married, or joins the army. The reality is a lot of people can't afford it.[/QUOTE]
And that's a damn travesty
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42270497]that's super disconnected from reality. I'd love for my girlfriend to be covered. But she's a college student with a minimum wage job, who can't claim independent from her father who provides no financial support until she's 24, has a kid, gets married, or joins the army. The reality is a lot of people can't afford it.[/QUOTE]
If her father has insurance she can be added to his policy. One of the positive things obamacare does...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.