|user created polls & quizzes|
non private hospitals have to treat you preparation, if you are unable to get medicaid or sometimes the hospitals have a plan, otherwise , or do whatever you needed to pay the bill. non insurance does not necessarily mean non treatment, maybe just not the best treatment.
the money that would be saved if people would stop smoking would more that pay for all americans to have health insurance.
money saved on healh related problems from smoking I mean.
It seems a lot of people get such a case of resentment that they may have to pay (sic) for someone else's care that they go ballistic on this topic.
All due to successful spin; they don't bitch about life insurance, which is just spreading out costs over a general population.
Conditioning, over generations.
Lawyers are the main reason health care in the United States is so expensive. There have been so many ridiculously unfounded lawsuits against the medical profession that the prices end up skyrocketing to cover the cost of malpractice insurance.
Anyone who thinks that socialized government health care is the answer, take a long look at the Canadian govt. health care, and you'll see it doesn't work all that well.
Prep, we have basic health coverage for the poor here, just like we give food-stamps, welfare checks, etc. to the poor. It may not be of the best quality, but it's far better than nothing. To close, I agree with the Japster.
Yes, as usual, it's the middle class that bears the brunt.
My husband and I have catastrophic health coverage with a HIGH deductible, which costs us approximately 6K a year (at this moment in time - it goes up every couple of months). This does not cover basic things like check-ups and there is no coverage for medications. Without the Internet I would not be able to afford a couple of very important, if not lifesaving, drugs I am on. We basically pay that 6K for a sense of 'security' in case of a horrible accident or disease...which the insurance companies have been known to refuse to pay for anyway.
I would venture to say that lawyers are not the only reason for the high cost of health care in the U.S. I would put just as much blame at the door of insurance and pharmaceutical companies. I am acquainted with a couple of MDs and they feel *much* more hostility towards the insurance industry (HMOs, etc.) than lawyers. The insurance industry has been basically dictating how MDs can treat their patients for some time. When bureaucrats take over something like medical care, there is something in the system that needs fixing.
I agree, Cathexis. You just can't put a price tag on death and human suffering. I'm sure those people who can afford it would change their tune if they became impoverished and needed health care.
That expression "money is the root of all evil" is no more apparent than in a capitalist society who would rather destroy the environment (which we all happen to live in), to create jobs. How short-sighted. People may have a hard time doing their jobs if they can't breathe.
I'm sorry, I should have added in insurace companies also. Second to lawyers in my opinion, are the insurance companies. They are allowed to legally gamble with our lives, putting profit ahead of good health and affordable care. My freaking deductible is 1000 dollars, that's just insanity.
What jappy said
Socialism would just give us lower quality care for a higher price.
Have you ever lived in a country with any form of socialized medicine? I have, and the healthcare is of equal, if not in some cases, higher quality. As for costing more, I would prefer to pay 6K/yr more in taxes and know that I was covered for emergencies and medicine, than be in my current situation. Right now, I am thinking of dropping my coverage altogether because of the rising, costs. That will leave me with NO health care - of *any* quality.
Have you, or a loved one, ever been turned away from an emergency ward because you had no insurance? That has happened to a couple of people I know who are NOT "deadbeats". No one should have to experience that; that shouldn't be happening in a compassionate country - whether conservative or liberal.
I am not a proponent of socialism. I just think that catastrophic health coverage should be a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it. (Note - Medicaid DOES NOT provide coverage for people who make above poverty-level wages.)
Those numbers are misleading. If at any point in the year you are without health care you are counted as being without for the entire year. So if you are fired on tuesday, are without healthcare on wednsday, then get a new job with health coverage on thursday you are counted the same as someone who goes without the whole year. Sounds dumb doesn't it? It also doesn't take into account how many of those are illegal immigrants, who wouldn't benefit from a national health care system anyway, and how many choose to do without even though they could afford it.
But let's not look at those facts, 45 million is a big scary number, repeat it enough and it's bound to drum up a few extra votes.
Herzog: have you ever been self-employed? Ever had a chronic health problem?
Yup, it's pretty darn scary.
Never mind. I sure wish I hadn't posted this ballot. It's depressing as sh*t.
Over and out.
mojo I think herzog point was that maybe the numbers after taking in other fators are not 45 million, I'm sure for many people like yourself the cost of insurance coverage is outragous, but I also don't necessarily socialized health plan is the way to go either.
I've been in this spot for close to five years myself now, and it's the one driving issue of this entire election for me. Bush's grand plan, placed before us like a sundry confection meant to leave us enraptured, leaves me instead enraged. The man has NO CONCERN for the masses beyond their vote on November 2 and, to anyone who thinks otherwise, I make you a sale offer of PRIME oceanfront property in South Dakota...
another reason why america just sucks
its great in england! i can quit a job get my teeth done my eyes checked my hearing checked! then i can get a full medical all for free then go back to work! perfect! i dont care what this costs the conservative rich i think its perfect! I pay my taxes in the mean time! and i know if im ever ill i`ll be looked after! true there are areas of britain where this isnt always the case but i dont live in one! long live the NHS! and even if you go private (which i have in the past) its still cheaper than in the states!
Being English you would probably have to, wouldn't you Mobsie666?
Interesting about Bush is the $139 billion he wants the American taxpayer to caugh up because of safety issues (what a laugh) regarding Canadian medicine.
It is the nice thing about free market economy and small Government
If it costs the "free market" money to have competition, which it does in some of the better capitalist models , they all of a sudden need "protection"
Oh, I mean: you have to be protected from security issues.
And small Government does not actually mean small. It means: less to no interference with corporate America.
Large companies and branches of industry have "Internal guide lines" and "Codes of Conduct" whereas the population has a police force and judicial system breathing down their neck where they to "stray".
Insurrance companies say that premiums have gone through the roof (they would actually say: significant increase necessitated by market realities)
because of ridiculous claims and claims alone whereas the larger of truths is that they lost a bundle of cash on the stockmarkets, and now we have to pay for it.
erm ____Merovingian____ what is your problem! what would i have to do? I may have to ignore you because your only 12! are theyre any nannies around to give this child a hug?? oh no its coz you need to pay for them dont you and you dont earn yet! ahh well kid ur on your own im afraid!
You can almost hear the right wing saying 'Are there no workhouses , are there no prisons?'
Some people really have NO shame, and would defend the indefensible, just because it goes against the grain of their dogma.
jappy: That is just not true; it is the Official Sound Byte of the GOP this year.
Litigation is not only NOT the leading cause of teh rise in healthcare costs, it amounts to a mere fraction of the costs. In other words, it is a red herring.
The problem with falsely positioning this as THE major cause is that:
1: Addressing this will NOT resolve the problem.
2: While focusing on this, no one is addressing the REAL issues.
herzog: You conveniently quibble about specific numbers, which allows you to evade even acknowledging there is a problem.
No more weaseling; let me pose this directly: Do you believe their is NO problem with the number of uninsured in the U.S.?
Yes or No, without attempts to sidetrack, please.
There is a problem, but not one that should be addressed with another federal program.
He's a lot smarter than you at less than 1/3 your age.
Medical care is a problem in this country but it is no worse than what socialist economies have and it cannot be solved by more government programs. Deregulation and decartelization would go a long way but people getting their fat asses on a treadmill and eating healthy would probably do the most.
Herzog: how do you propose it be addressed? Philanthropy?
Yes, there are existing problems with the current healthcare system in America. I believe that the 45mil number is exaggerated or biased towards a certain agenda.
Even so, there are many out there that cannot afford certain medical procedures or costs, but instituting any sort of all encompassing government healthcare is not the answer. I am strongly against this, because it has dire consequences on the overall quality of care that people recieve. You can argue this point all you want. Sure your can get you meds and have your eyes examined with social medicine, but don't expect to get treated well if you ever get a serious lifethreatening desease such as cancer or heart trouble. BASIC healthcare should be available to all, but as for the rest, it should be up to the individual to make the choice.
One factor that is consistently overlooked by the Right is the effect such failings have on our society.
Without healthcare, more households face decisions between bankrptcy and significantly shortened lives or qualities of life.
The healthy population becomes forced to rub shoulders with those who have now become The Great Unwashed Masses. They tend to try and isolate themselves, further exacerbating problems such as urban blight.
And people who are kept from access to such necessities are rarely happy or satisfied.
And unhappy, dissatisfied people are not good members of society. I suggest that many social ills (crime, violence, drugs, etc.) are increased due to this kind of thing.
toady: I have to say, I don't see merit in your fears.
People with money will *always* be able access superior care. What we are talking here is the basics for a decent life. Your fear that somehow no one in the country will be able to get good care has no basis in reality.
I must ask all those who generalize about countries with any kind of social healthcare: How much do you know about it? Have you ever lived in one of those countries? What qualifies you to dismiss it out of hand? And importantly, have you ever been UNINSURED?
I have an 8 year old daughter who is on medication and without the medication she could get pretty sick well the insurance company decided that it was ok if they cancelled it! Now I have to pay for her meds! It's not cheap! I agree that we have a problem here but I also think that although you may have free health care in other countries you don't have the same choices as we do here! When I had my insurance for her everything was free!
I don't think it should be easier for a smoker they are killing themselves why would they need insurance??
And they can not deny you treatment at the ER here in the US even if you don't have insurance! You just get a huge bill later and that really sucks.
That healthcare isn't "free". Just think about how much extra they pay in taxes throughout the course of their lives.
Mojo: my solution: sometimes the solution to a problem is worse than the problem it is addressing. This is one of those cases. We can have crappy service for some and excellent service for most, or crappy service for everyone. I think we should have healthcare for children regardless. We need to do something about run away costs of lawsuits, and actually rounding up illegal immigrants would help (as they are the worst abusers of 'free' emergency care) either that or treat them then send to the bill to their home country. Let people order medications from anywhere in the world, so long as they understand these aren't necessarily regulated. Other than that we should leave it be, it's not perfect but it is superior to everyone else.
I pay for the health care! I work for the state here and have my own healthcare she was on another insurance plan but I paid for it! Her med was free and mine was only two dollars with my advance pc.
Atleast we know our tax money is going for something good!
In the UK we have a Health Service that is free to all regardless of ability to pay.
Herzog argues that free universal healthcare would somehow lessen the effectiveness of the care. Poppycock.
Here in the UK we have PRIVATE medicine and health insurance. So we have the best of both worlds.
No government in the UK could get elected if it was proposed that the NHS (National Health System) was scrapped.
90% of the population are happy to have a proportion of their taxes used to pay for it.
In a nutshell, Mojo and Kisty would not have to juggle their lives to choose what to spend money on, the burden would be lifted and they could spend the money saved on other things.
Im not sure what the ethics in the US are, but most of the doctors and nurses in the UK, do the job as much as a vocation as any financial reward they may recieve. The vast majority of the doctors and nurses are in favour of the NHS and remain in it all their working lives, because they believe in it.
A quick point on the smokers point, in the UK almosy 70% ofthe price of a packet of cigarettes is tax, so it would be a bit disingenuous to refuse them treatment given the amount of indirect tax they pay.
When it comes down to it, the only people truly opposed to socialised medicine, are the better off, it galls them that people should (as their narrow view percieves it) get something for nothing.
I heard someone screaming about how Bush doesn't care about the common man in this election? *LOL* does kerry have you duped into believing he cares?? That comment about 300,000 dollars a year or more the other night in the debate really showed his true colors, just assuming no one in the audience made that much money a year.
And another funny thing I just saw, was there a british person actually claiming they get DENTAL care??? now come on, that is NOT true, not in England, there are no dentists
Maybe I should move to the UK hehe.
There you go calling your healthcare "free", and proving yourself wrong in the same comment. You pay for the NHS through taxes and those extra taxes are probably much more than what you would pay here for better care.
Steelhamster, do you pay the equivalent of $6K/year in taxes JUST for catastrophic health care (no meds or maintenance)? MrTroche seems to think you pay more. I'm interested to find out. Thanx.
He wouldn't pay $6,000 here. Employees on single coverage plans pay an average of ~$600/yr here. Family coverage is ~$3000 but then you have to calculate how much each person in his family pays in NHS taxes.
herz: The assertion that other countries' healthcare sucks is just plain wrong. How long are you going to keep buying into that?
You don't *need* an MRI for an infection or a broken leg. At this level, healthcare is healthcare.
triche: Like so many other things, it is an investment. Sometimes, you have to invest in the Society which makes your lifestyle possible.
If you don't wnat to be taxed, find an island somewhere where you won't have any society to 'support.'
Of course, that Society won't be there to provide a structure to earn a living, either ... will it.
'Scuse me, Mr. Troche, but did you read my comments? My husband and I have shopped around extensively, and 3K/per person is the BEST deal we can get anywhere. We are neither old, feeble, nor chronically ill either.
By the way, if you can steer me to a plan where I can pay only $600/year for catastrophic, please do tell. Thank you.
If you look up the statistics, those are them. Remeber that data is for employer sponsored care. After I finish grad school I plan on paying for a health plan until I have saved a sizeable amount of money, at which point I will pay for my own regular appointments and have savings for an emergency or surgery. However, my best insurance policy is frequent exercise and a healthy diet, any international comparison of healthcare costs is incomplete without considering the lifestyles and diets of the nations under examinition. The quality of care is only the tip of the iceberg.
I know all about investments, after examining the options, a deregulated, decartelized and lightly subsidized healthcare system is a better investment than a socialized one. Unfortunately, our system is neither and is heading towards a situation even worse than what they have in Europe. I do not believe Bush or the greedy lawyers of the Kerry team care to fix this problem.
As ive said all along mrtroche doen`t live in the real world! he`s stuck in this republican dream where everyone is rich and noone suffers! and america is the greatest nation in the world and noone can say otherwise! If you were a human being mrtroche you wouldnt mind paying out taxes from you highly paid job (that you aint got yet) for the worse off! But i think you are far too selfish for that!
and if what you say about usa and medicine being soooo much better how come the uk and ireland have a longer life expectency? or are you just going to make something up as usual
Mojo: The health system does not discriminate on how 'healthy' one is, so if for example you were a diabetic, epileptic, one legged bi polar patient, you would recieve the same equal treatmeat as anyone.
Some people on this site are down on socialised medicine for no other reason than it is socialised medicine.
Its like the Jehovah Witness who will refuse a blood transfusion, just because it doesnt gel with their political dogma.
Basically, its cutting off their nose tospite their face.
If you were over here in the UK as a tourist and had an accident, you would be treated just as well as a UK citizen and not be presented with a bill.
It was stated we pay X amount in tax so we pay for it anyway, yes thatis the case, but every nation pays taxes, would you as a citizen prefer a decent health system for all or a few more intercontinental missiles?
I would hazard to guess that an overwhelming majority would favour a health system.
sorry steelhamster but i think jehovas witlesses refusing blood transfusions is a good thing!
1. Better? It depends on the criteria. Better for the national population as a whole? I don't see how you can make that assertion.
2: Limiting yourself to employer-provided healthcare is convenient. Unfortunately, it doesn't address all of the people who do not get such a benefit, including small businesses, self-employed, under-employed, part-time, seasonal, and unemployed. Below a certain wage level, there are no benefits, either. So by limiting the discussion to a subset of the population, you are evading the issue.
3: More employers are dropping healthcare and/or increasing employee costs.
4: How can you justify putting the healthcare onus on Business?!? Isn't that a drag on the economy?!?
SH: You are correct, when a large number of Americans here Socialized, their ears slam shut and additional discussion becomes mere noise to them.
Brits have a longer life expectancy because of a better diet and a different racial composition. There you go with your crap again. I've gone from the housing projects of the South Bronx to the upper-middle class suburbs of Florida. I've had a very dramatic life for my 20 years on this Earth. I do not feel sorry for most people living in poverty because I've been there and I know most of those people would be better off if they weren't so lazy.
1. Yes, the average American can get better care than the average Brit when price is taken into consideration.
2. That's the figure I found. It's also best to compare employed Americans to employed Britons, who of course are the only ones paying NHS taxes.
3. That's true but socialism is not the answer. We need reform.
4. I don't know about all businesses but scientific firms provide excellent health benefits because it's better to pay that money and keep employees healthy than to lose productivity when those employees become sick. I'm sure they do a cost analysis on this.
It is the supreme virtue and it is the reason we're better off than you. If a socialized healthcare system was more efficient I would support it but it is inferior to our current system and the system we should have.
Socialism violates human rights by design. That system is clearly immoral; it leads to less well-being than you would find in a true Capitalist society. Individualism means looking out for your own best interests even if that means helping someone else. We seek to have less government and more freedom.
Hobbes was wrong, Locke was right.
Hobbes was right. CALVIN was wrong.
Troche: I have to disagree. The *average* trip to see a doctor does not *require* anything exceptionally fancy!
Antibiotics are antibiotics. Guess what ... Europe knows of these wonders and utilizes them!
Splints are splints, X-rays are x-rays. Wonder of wonders ... Europe knows of such Advanced Science.
Not everyone suffers from advanced mesolthelioma and doesn't *require* the so-called advanced care.
And ya know ... Europe does pretty well in this respect to, I am told.
You are operating under a stereotype.
Troche: It is a better investment ... for those who capilalize it and want to see a profit.
It is *not* a better investment, societally.
Troche: Sometimes, ones best interests are met through Cooperation with others. You fail to see the forest as you try to grub for your individual tree.
Mrtroche this is a site for people to socialise on! why dont you take your individualism and do what you do best! Sit on your own and talk to nobody! Better still why dont you start a mrtroche site where you can sit and agree with yourself!
I pay taxes gladly. Americans find it difficult to understand, but we live for eachother not for ourselves. Americans have evil individualism stuck in their mind. Individualism is NOT a virtue.
by EUROTOPIA on Oct 14, 2004
Eurotopia: Why don't you shut the f**k up! What is your damn problem with Americans. I am so tired of cranky, bitter, ignorant idiots like you. You are so damn angry at something. Get a life. You are condescending, arrogant, rude, spiteful, and egotistical beyond belief. People like YOU are what is wrong in the world And I read your whole "all men are brothers" line...you lying hypocrit! Hide behind this whole "love everyone" stuff and then slam Americans when ever you can..yeah, real nice! And you know what, I bet you do it to everyone else too. What ever nationality you are, I bet you slam everyone else when ever you can...maybe not on this site, but I'm sure you do...people like you always do.
You wanna calm down patch! that was aimed mainly at troche and his "we`re so much better than you are" bullshit! Troch the guy who creates another persona to help him win a ballot and when he`s found out still denies it! Although he did admit to having 2 but couldn`t remember a password? Now how smart is that! But even so his attitude does make it appear that americans are rude selfish and arrogant and people like you have to cope with the flak he creates!
I'm sorry Mobsie666, but this is something I feel very passionate about. So many of Eurotopia's postings is anti-American to the extreme. I just can't understand people like her because she is so hypocritical. It's very hurtful to constantly read stuff like that...especially when it never stops...she needs to be more fair minded. I wend off on her in quite a few posts, so sorry, but on this one, I feel very strongly (and come on...you are just as passionate as me at times :)
Some would argue that what we define as altruism can really be considered individualism. When we help others, we are often improving society and making things better for ourselves. If I donate money to help troubled teens become productive citizens instead of criminals, I am helping myself and my children in the future by keeping that person from destroying a value greater than the one I gave him. I am agnostic on this issue but it makes intuitive sense.
Lay off the phallus, evidently it is killing brain cells.
Calm down dude, smoke a fatty and take a deep breath. I disagree with EURO too but at least she is civil in her arguments. mobsie is like a rabid chimp.
Mr. Troche: I wish I could calm down..well actually, I am calm. I get upset when someone like Eurotopia just goes on and on with her anti-Americanism. I have to grow up in this world and it's just absurd the things she writes. Not only was their a candle light vigil in NYC for the victims of the Madrid train bombings, but my school sent a condolence card. For her to claim that we "kicked Spain when they were down" was lunacy. As for Mobsie, he is one of my favorite people on this site...he and I got into it recently and then I realized that he is just very passionate and he at least has a consistent philosophy...Eurotopia just seems to be hypocritical. She's entitled to her opinions, but I just wish they were less harsh.
Troche: OK, now that I could see.
your a boring little man troche you really do think that you bother me with your snidy little comments! I know you dont deal with what i say because its the truth but you try and make it less than it is! are you sure your not Winston Smith. You dont live in a democracy troche you live in a mediocracy. where a media that is supposed to check political abuse is actually part of the political abuse!
blah, blah, blah