'Evil and Orwellian' – America's right turns its fire on Britain's NHS - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;16731781]FYI lobbyists actually contribute a lot besides corporate opinion. They spend a lot of time drafting legislation in lieu of their respective congressman. If we do too much fucking with lobbyists our legislative process will slow down tremendously. Shit, odds are the health proposal was drafted by lobbyists at several points in time.[/QUOTE] After all, Lobbyists have access to the single most important resource in Congress: Information. Lobbyists are able to take a 500 page bill, read it, then condense it into a 3-4 page summary for congressmen.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;16734754]His primary goal being to argue with everyone in on Facepunch. He doesn't care about Healthcare Reform, just arguing with people for the sake of arguing. Just the way I see it.[/QUOTE] The hell are you smoking

[QUOTE=Lankist;16733320]hey that post of yours was super cool and all trotsky but i'm not going to engage you in your typical "dhur you lose and im not going to respond to your points" arguments when you too have clearly never even come close to reading the proposal. my post is up there [editline]05:33AM[/editline] ITT trotsky loses like always [editline]05:33AM[/editline] fulfill your destiny and become stalin's bitch[/QUOTE] What?

I will defend the NHS valiantly but I admit that in this case Lankist is probably right

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;16734754]His primary goal being to argue with everyone in on Facepunch. He doesn't care about Healthcare Reform, just arguing with people for the sake of arguing. Just the way I see it.[/QUOTE] Yes that's why I read the bill so I can troll on facepunch. Trolling you guys is so important to me that I spent two days reading 1013 pages of politics. Hey guys this guy seems fairly informed on the subject, what's up with that? TROLL TROLL HE'S A TROLL DON'T REPLY HE'S TROLLING

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;16734754]His primary goal being to argue with everyone in on Facepunch. He doesn't care about Healthcare Reform, just arguing with people for the sake of arguing. Just the way I see it.[/QUOTE] I thought better of you, Andre.

[QUOTE=James*;16738116]I will defend the NHS valiantly but I admit that in this case Lankist is probably right[/QUOTE] Honestly, from what I'm hearing, the bill sounds like a crock of shit compared to the NHS.

[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;16740160]Honestly, from what I'm hearing, the bill sounds like a crock of shit compared to the NHS.[/QUOTE] It is a bipartisan crock of shit, yes.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;16719214]Yeah, most normal people don't just forget about their insurance.[/QUOTE] Except for those who can't pay for it and don't qualify for other plans like medicaid or medicare, and this is the real point people are conveniently forgetting.

[QUOTE=Hivemind;16740246]Except for those who can't pay for it and don't qualify for other plans like medicaid or medicare, and this is the real point people are conveniently forgetting.[/QUOTE] Do you even understand how insurance works?

[QUOTE=Lankist;16740377]Do you even understand how insurance works?[/QUOTE] Yes, but not everyone can afford/is given insurance... Which is what my post was about.

[QUOTE=Hivemind;16740418]Yes, but not everyone can afford/is given insurance... Which is what my post was about.[/QUOTE] And why is it pertinent to fix that by making a government-run insurance program that utilizes the same tactics and lack of ethics that private insurance does, RATHER than using the mass of laws regarding insurance as justification to create government oversight of existing companies in addition to granting even greater rewards to employers who offer benefits to their employees?

To look at some rankings: [url]http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html[/url] [url]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person[/url] How can a country that spends the most on healthcare (per head, smartasses) be so far down the list?

That has nothing to do with what I asked. And why is it pertinent to fix that by making a government-run insurance program that utilizes the same tactics and lack of ethics that private insurance does, RATHER than using the mass of laws regarding insurance as justification to create government oversight of existing companies in addition to granting even greater rewards to employers who offer benefits to their employees?

[QUOTE=Lankist;16740466]And why is it pertinent to fix that by making a government-run insurance program that utilizes the same tactics and lack of ethics that private insurance does, RATHER than using the mass of laws regarding insurance as justification to create government oversight of existing companies in addition to granting even greater rewards to employers who offer benefits to their employees?[/QUOTE] Because you'll still have those who fall between the gaps. [editline]09:17PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;16740567]That has nothing to do with what I asked. And why is it pertinent to fix that by making a government-run insurance program that utilizes the same tactics and lack of ethics that private insurance does, RATHER than using the mass of laws regarding insurance as justification to create government oversight of existing companies in addition to granting even greater rewards to employers who offer benefits to their employees?[/QUOTE] Because I wasn't actually replying to you there.

[QUOTE=Hivemind;16740580]Because you'll still have those who fall between the gaps.[/QUOTE] Have you fucking READ the proposal? We STILL have those who fall between the gaps! Drug users, alcoholics and smokers, illegal residents, prostitutes, clients of prostitutes etc etc etc All of those will be denied service and probably arrested, save for alcoholics and smokers. People hurt doing things that are illegal will avoid hospitals like the plague, moreso than they do now. I thought this was about getting EVERYONE health care, not just people you like.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16740466]And why is it pertinent to fix that by making a government-run insurance program that utilizes the same tactics and lack of ethics that private insurance does, RATHER than using the mass of laws regarding insurance as justification to create government oversight of existing companies in addition to granting even greater rewards to employers who offer benefits to their employees?[/QUOTE] Why would a government system use the same tatics as a private company? For one thing, a government system would not be trying to earn as much profit as possible, which also means a different set of ethics. EDIT: Of course, the exceptions in the bill are an issue. I know the NHS by law has to provide treatment to everyone, and that should be the part of any universal healthcare system. Then again, it's hard to get health insurance or health insurance payouts if you have a pre-existing condition, which in my opinion is even worse.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16740643]Why would a government system use the same tatics as a private company? For one thing, a government system would not be trying to earn as much profit as possible, which also means a different set of ethics.[/QUOTE] Have you read the bill? They give themselves ample room to play the run-around games that insurance plays today. Anything related to drugs, prostitution, "self-harm" as defined by the government and anything slightly questionable will be investigated just as intensely as private insurance does, and then denied coverage.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16740612]Have you fucking READ the proposal? We STILL have those who fall between the gaps! Drug users, alcoholics and smokers, illegal residents, prostitutes, clients of prostitutes etc etc etc All of those will be denied service and probably arrested, save for alcoholics and smokers. People hurt doing things that are illegal will avoid hospitals like the plague.[/QUOTE] Well then clearly that needs to be changed to allow those people to get coverage. But your proposal means even more people fall, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

They ARE trying to profit, via taxes, and shelling out claims causes them to lose money, therefore their clear intention is to pay out as few claims as possible.

Also no, I have not read the bill, and I have not been arguing for it either.

[QUOTE=Hivemind;16740675]Well then clearly that needs to be changed to allow those people to get coverage. But your proposal means even more people fall, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.[/QUOTE] No, my proposal means we achieve the exact same effect without destroying drug rights and right-to-die movements.

[QUOTE=Hivemind;16740692]Also no, I have not read the bill, and I have also not been arguing for it either, I have been defending the NHS.[/QUOTE] The bill is pretty different from our NHS.

[QUOTE=Hivemind;16740692]Also no, I have not read the bill, and I have also not been arguing for it either, I have been defending the NHS.[/QUOTE] We aren't talking about the NHS.

If the government offers insurance to all that do not have private insurance, what's the point of employers paying extra for it? [editline]09:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;16740724]We aren't talking about the NHS.[/QUOTE] This is a thread about the NHS.

[QUOTE=James*;16740710]The bill is pretty different from our NHS.[/QUOTE] Namely in the fact that it leaves hospitals privatized due to how impossible it is to manage the thousands of them in the country, and instead creates a Medicare-like system that serves everyone, well everyone with a lot of exceptions. There is very little change from the existing medicare system today, which means all of its flaws will become this system's flaws with the addition of it becoming a massive system that needs to preserve finances as efficiently as possible, i.e. denying claims left and right. [editline]04:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Hivemind;16740749]If the government offers insurance to all that do not have private insurance, what's the point of employers paying extra for it?[/quote] Uhh, because the government doesn't have the money to insure everyone. [quote]This is a thread about the NHS.[/QUOTE] We, as in you and I, are not talking about the NHS. We are talking about the US Health Proposal. If you would prefer to read it first go right ahead.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16740784]Namely in the fact that it leaves hospitals privatized due to how impossible it is to manage the thousands of them in the country, and instead creates a Medicare-like system that serves everyone, well everyone with a lot of exceptions. There is very little change from the existing medicare system today, which means all of its flaws will become this system's flaws with the addition of it becoming a massive system that needs to preserve finances as efficiently as possible, i.e. denying claims left and right.[/QUOTE] If you create a system without an obligation to care for everyone, and care for them equally, then Obama is putting a little too much trust in human nature. [editline]09:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;16740784] Uhh, because the government doesn't have the money to insure everyone. [/QUOTE] Well then that's another problem surely. Why would employers care about that? They could just stop offering insurance to new employees, save a load of money and the employees would still be covered. To be clear, I'm not arguing for the bill, I'm pointing out something I see as a problem with it.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;16740643]Why would a government system use the same tatics as a private company? For one thing, a government system would not be trying to earn as much profit as possible, which also means a different set of ethics. EDIT: Of course, the exceptions in the bill are an issue. I know the NHS by law has to provide treatment to everyone, and that should be the part of any universal healthcare system. Then again, it's hard to get health insurance or health insurance payouts if you have a pre-existing condition, which in my opinion is even worse.[/QUOTE] Because clearly the Government, compared to corporations, is omnibenevolent and wouldn't want to find any way not to have to spend precious money on taking care of you. After all, you are nothing more then a statistic to them, right?

[QUOTE=Hivemind;16740831]If you create a system without an obligation to care for everyone, and care for them equally, then Obama is putting a little too much trust in human nature.[/QUOTE] Obama didn't draft this plan, his involvement is minimal. It was originally drafted by lobbyists, probably anyway. We can't create a system with an obligation to care for all because that's impossible on a U.S. scale. We have 300 million people to care for, PLUS illegal residents. Even assuming we had the money and the infrastructure to create a unified national insurance, it wouldn't work on the principal of law enforcement alone. As it stands Doctor Patient Confidentiality applies even to criminals so long as they do not pose a threat to anyone else. That is due to change when the government starts footing the bill. And this is only the practical shit, I haven't even begun to touch the philosophical side. Our government is extremely incompetent. I wouldn't trust them with the health of a rat, let alone my own. History has demonstrated that, at least in the US, ethical obligations quickly dissolve into obscurity when people get tired of giving shit out for free. The best minds don't want ethics, they want paychecks, and rightfully so. Government doesn't shell out the best pay and it never will, where on the other hand large corporations are capable of hiring the best minds for the job. The only remaining problem with that is that large corporations on the insurance side of the issue have absolutely no oversight, there is nobody to appeal to when they fuck you over unless you're willing to shell out thousands in legal fees and you're patient enough to fight it all the way to the top. Create oversight, fix problem. You can't go around saying the ultimate goal is to cover everyone and seal the cracks, because then the service turns to shit. The focus stops being on good healthcare and starts being on healthcare for everyone no matter how shit it becomes. When you start doing that you start seriously fucking with a lot of demographics. Terminal patients, prostitutes, drug users, shit even depressed children could all be denied service just to save a buck. How is that better than what we have? [editline]04:41PM[/editline] Your mistake is in thinking our government has compassion. It doesn't. It is cold and calculating, and it often misplaces a decimal.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;16740981]Because clearly the Government, compared to corporations, is omnibenevolent and wouldn't want to find any way not to have to spend precious money on taking care of you. After all, you are nothing more then a statistic to them, right?[/QUOTE] If that's true, then how come the NHS is in debt? If governments were so money-obessed then surely the NHS would be in the black? The government isn't out to get everyone.