There is a difference between things that are used for all individuals and personal use. Roads and the military are both societal. SSI is paid into buy everyone working and is theirs at some point when they need it. I'm against public schools actually. I don't finance college loans myself. If you are implying that banking is part of that....you can shop until you find a bank that satisifies you. You aren't stuck with one bank nor their rates. My insurance pays the emergency room thank you. Most I'd have to pay is $50 unless admitted and that is put in place to force people to visit a doctor and not tie up emergency rooms with minor issues. I hate to break it to you, but yeah you do finance college loans, and grants even. You also pay when individuals visit the emergency room.[QUOTE="duxup"]Both are social saftey nets. You pay for roads, you pay for military, you pay for social security disability income, you pay for schools that you may not use, you finance college loans, you pay for all sorts of things that you personally may not use nor ever directly benefit from. When folks visit the emergency room you pay for that too.LJS9502_basic
If there are public schools, why can't there be public health care?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Not the same at all. Social Security is for when you retire. So you put into it when you work. It's your benefits for a later date. If you never use government health care then you should not be forced to pay into it. Period.Anyone for government healthcare should be able to answer the last question.
LJS9502_basic
unless you are very wealthy there is no certainty that you will never use government healthcare. for one thing when you're a senor Medicare may be an option and for many that worked all their lives is the best option. also with private insurance usually attached to a job when you lose that job you'll have a hard time paying for that insurance that is no longer subsidized by your former employer. if you buy your own insurance they could drop you because you cost them too much because you got cancer or something else that requires long term care. at which point you would want to be on the government plan.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is a difference between things that are used for all individuals and personal use. Roads and the military are both societal. SSI is paid into buy everyone working and is theirs at some point when they need it. I'm against public schools actually. I don't finance college loans myself. If you are implying that banking is part of that....you can shop until you find a bank that satisifies you. You aren't stuck with one bank nor their rates. My insurance pays the emergency room thank you. Most I'd have to pay is $50 unless admitted and that is put in place to force people to visit a doctor and not tie up emergency rooms with minor issues. I hate to break it to you, but yeah you do finance college loans, and grants even. You also pay when individuals visit the emergency room.Rather vague. And I can assure you I'm not paying for others visits to the emergency room. I pay little for my insurance as it is. Used to pay nothing but the percent I pay is neglible. So no...they won't get emergency treatment off me.[QUOTE="duxup"]Both are social saftey nets. You pay for roads, you pay for military, you pay for social security disability income, you pay for schools that you may not use, you finance college loans, you pay for all sorts of things that you personally may not use nor ever directly benefit from. When folks visit the emergency room you pay for that too.duxup
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not the same at all. Social Security is for when you retire. So you put into it when you work. It's your benefits for a later date. If you never use government health care then you should not be forced to pay into it. Period.
Anyone for government healthcare should be able to answer the last question.
Ontain
unless you are very wealthy there is no certainty that you will never use government healthcare. for one thing when you're a senor Medicare may be an option and for many that worked all their lives is the best option. also with private insurance usually attached to a job when you lose that job you'll have a hard time paying for that insurance that is no longer subsidized by your former employer. if you buy your own insurance they could drop you because you cost them too much because you got cancer or something else that requires long term care. at which point you would want to be on the government plan.
Medicare is already having problems. And treatments are denied under Medicare but by all means.....give everyone in the country that headache.:|
Because the alternative is so much worse? Because no matter how expensive or how badly performing a public health care system might be it is still better than leaving 20% of your citizens without any access to proper health care at all. Because it is immoral to refuse someone suffering from cancer access to drugs and therapy which might save their life, simply because they could not afford health insurance.[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]why would you want two failing over-expensive programs?....tycoonmike
Even if it meant all the naysayer's worst nightmares coming true: the death panels, the rationing of health care, and the long lines to get a life-saving operation? Isn't it more immoral to provide healthcare but deny it to someone for so long that they eventually die because of the government's negligence?
No one would be forced to use the public health care system, those who could afford private health insurance can carry on paying if they believe these nightmare scenarios to be of any merit. However I would say these nightmare scenarios are largely BS. I live in the UK, I know barely anyone with private health insurance, not because they can't afford it, but merely because it is just not necessary. The NHS, contrary to what you might have been led to believe, actually works quite well. I see no reason an American system couldn't work just as well or better.I hate to break it to you, but yeah you do finance college loans, and grants even. You also pay when individuals visit the emergency room.Rather vague. And I can assure you I'm not paying for others visits to the emergency room. I pay little for my insurance as it is. Used to pay nothing but the percent I pay is neglible. So no...they won't get emergency treatment off me. I guess I'm assuming you live in the US and pay taxes. If you do, yeah you're paying for other people's emergency room visits and the individual educational benefits I listed, amongst other things.[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is a difference between things that are used for all individuals and personal use. Roads and the military are both societal. SSI is paid into buy everyone working and is theirs at some point when they need it. I'm against public schools actually. I don't finance college loans myself. If you are implying that banking is part of that....you can shop until you find a bank that satisifies you. You aren't stuck with one bank nor their rates. My insurance pays the emergency room thank you. Most I'd have to pay is $50 unless admitted and that is put in place to force people to visit a doctor and not tie up emergency rooms with minor issues.
LJS9502_basic
I guess I'm assuming you live in the US and pay taxes. If you do, yeah you're paying for other people's emergency room visits and the individual educational benefits I listed, amongst other things. duxupI'm not talking about welfare programs already in place. I think many should be cut actually. I'm talking the increased cost.
I'm not talking about welfare programs already in place. I think many should be cut actually. I'm talking the increased cost. Is that because your argument that this benefit is somehow different than others just doesn't hold up now? I think cost is a valid concern. However, I would argue that should be applied to existing and new benefits provided by the government equally. It is not as if all benefits provided up until now were somehow paid for and we just now crossed the "can't afford it" threshold. They haven't been for some time. Personally I have no problem with a national health care program provided the taxes are gathered to pay for it. Same goes with every other program, social, infrastructure, military.[QUOTE="duxup"]I guess I'm assuming you live in the US and pay taxes. If you do, yeah you're paying for other people's emergency room visits and the individual educational benefits I listed, amongst other things. LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"] Because the alternative is so much worse? Because no matter how expensive or how badly performing a public health care system might be it is still better than leaving 20% of your citizens without any access to proper health care at all. Because it is immoral to refuse someone suffering from cancer access to drugs and therapy which might save their life, simply because they could not afford health insurance.Kid-Icarus-
Even if it meant all the naysayer's worst nightmares coming true: the death panels, the rationing of health care, and the long lines to get a life-saving operation? Isn't it more immoral to provide healthcare but deny it to someone for so long that they eventually die because of the government's negligence?
No one would be forced to use the public health care system, those who could afford private health insurance can carry on paying if they believe these nightmare scenarios to be of any merit. However I would say these nightmare scenarios are largely BS. I live in the UK, I know barely anyone with private health insurance, not because they can't afford it, but merely because it is just not necessary. The NHS, contrary to what you might have been led to believe, actually works quite well. I see no reason an American system couldn't work just as well or better.How about the fact that the United States has five times the population as the United Kingdom?
And besides, wasn't there a thread on here about a week ago that showed a list of the average waiting times for people in the UK who are in need of hospital care?
And actually, the nightmare scenarios are plausible. Indeed, it was CNN just yesterday that admitted that it is possible for "death panels" to arise if the cost of the public health care system became overwhelming. They aren't instituted at the get-go, of course, but that doesn't mean the government wouldn't be able to institute them at some point. The beauty of this is that, just like in all other aspects of life, whoever holds the money holds the power. In this case it is the government, no matter what anyone says, that will hold the power because they will control the subsidies given to hospitals and people for their health care plan.
I hate to break it to you, but yeah you do finance college loans, and grants even. You also pay when individuals visit the emergency room.Rather vague. And I can assure you I'm not paying for others visits to the emergency room. I pay little for my insurance as it is. Used to pay nothing but the percent I pay is neglible. So no...they won't get emergency treatment off me. I can't speak personally for you because obviously I do not know your employment and financial situation, but what's been happening around the country for the past decade is that premiums are rising in cost very quickly, for various reasons, including the emergency care received by the uninsured which gets shifted on to the insured, and employers pay for that rise in health insurance cost by stagnating the wages of their employees.[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is a difference between things that are used for all individuals and personal use. Roads and the military are both societal. SSI is paid into buy everyone working and is theirs at some point when they need it. I'm against public schools actually. I don't finance college loans myself. If you are implying that banking is part of that....you can shop until you find a bank that satisifies you. You aren't stuck with one bank nor their rates. My insurance pays the emergency room thank you. Most I'd have to pay is $50 unless admitted and that is put in place to force people to visit a doctor and not tie up emergency rooms with minor issues.
LJS9502_basic
Is that because your argument that this benefit is somehow different than others just doesn't hold up now? I think cost is a valid concern. However, I would argue that should be applied to existing and new benefits provided by the government equally. It is not as if all benefits provided up until now were somehow paid for and we just now crossed the "can't afford it" threshold. They haven't been for some time. Personally I have no problem with a national health care program provided the taxes are gathered to pay for it. Same goes with every other program, social, infrastructure, military. duxupNo my argument holds up. I can't see that yours has though. You bring in benefits to a society as a whole and use that to justify benefitting individuals. Minority of individuals in the country as well.
My argument is that government should not be involved in issues that aren't for society. Adults should take care of themselves....and up until the country started social programs did so quite well. All handouts do is increased dependence on them and do not raise people above that level. This history of welfare illustrates that quite well.
The choice is easy....a strong country with responsible adults or a weak country with dependents on the government. After everyone relies on the government to raise them as children in continuity how do you propose the government gets the money to subsidize all these expensive programs? Why should someone making 75K need free health care? Why should someone making 35K provide that health care for them?
I never said the cost was paid. I said it's getting ridiculous to continue along this way and add to it. Government is not mommy and daddy.
And that is an issue that needs solved. But government health care is not the way to go.I can't speak personally for you because obviously I do not know your employment and financial situation, but what's been happening around the country for the past decade is that premiums are rising in cost very quickly, for various reasons, including the emergency care received by the uninsured which gets shifted on to the insured, and employers pay for that rise in health insurance cost by stagnating the wages of their employees.
-Sun_Tzu-
And that is an issue that needs solved. But government health care is not the way to go. But that's a different topic. You said you don't pay for the uninsured when they go to the emergency room, but the fact of the matter is that you do, and as a result wages have stagnated.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
I can't speak personally for you because obviously I do not know your employment and financial situation, but what's been happening around the country for the past decade is that premiums are rising in cost very quickly, for various reasons, including the emergency care received by the uninsured which gets shifted on to the insured, and employers pay for that rise in health insurance cost by stagnating the wages of their employees.
LJS9502_basic
Medicare is already having problems. And treatments are denied under Medicare but by all means.....give everyone in the country that headache.:|LJS9502_basic
Medicare has problems because it insures a much high percent of those that aren't going to be paying. if it was to everyone then you'd have a lot of health ppl paying (like the insurance companies do now). also Medicare has a higher level of satisfaction compared to private insurance holders as well as using less of it's money on non healthcare related costs (pay for execs, legal, stockholders, etc).
as for treatment denied. depends on the case. just like with private but private is worse since there is a profit in denying rather than just budget.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I'm not talking about welfare programs already in place. I think many should be cut actually. I'm talking the increased cost. Is that because your argument that this benefit is somehow different than others just doesn't hold up now? I think cost is a valid concern. However, I would argue that should be applied to existing and new benefits provided by the government equally. It is not as if all benefits provided up until now were somehow paid for and we just now crossed the "can't afford it" threshold. They haven't been for some time. Personally I have no problem with a national health care program provided the taxes are gathered to pay for it. Same goes with every other program, social, infrastructure, military. A lot of the overall inflation of health costs is being filtered down by the uninsured ER visits and treatments, but the other part is the "discounted" cost from Medicare and other State (aka government) programs are being pushed down to the individuals that carry healthcare coverage.[QUOTE="duxup"]I guess I'm assuming you live in the US and pay taxes. If you do, yeah you're paying for other people's emergency room visits and the individual educational benefits I listed, amongst other things. duxup
Two things: Obama is full of it if he thinks they are going to be able to negotiate costs down in a new system and we truely need personal responsiblity and education to take effect to reduce the cost of health insurance. There is a reason cosmetic surgery has increase 600% in the last 10 years, but the cost for it has decreased overall. Its paid out of pocket. Same thing with laser eye surgery. competetion.
But that's a different topic. You said you don't pay for the uninsured when they go to the emergency room, but the fact of the matter is that you do, and as a result wages have stagnated. -Sun_Tzu-That is not what I said. I have no problem with lowering insurance premiums but requiring all individuals above a set income to have it deducted from their pay if they won't voluntarily pay it. Car insurance is required by law. Medical insurance should be as well.
Stopping price gouging will bring the cost of insurance down in and of itself.
What? You know you pay into that program...right? And those that are under it have at one point. For the most. Do you know anyone that used Medicare? The government rations what it can be used on and it's required at a specific age that it becomes the primary. It's in trouble because government can't adequately provide social programs. The private sector is much better at that.Medicare has problems because it insures a much high percent of those that aren't going to be paying. if it was to everyone then you'd have a lot of health ppl paying (like the insurance companies do now). also Medicare has a higher level of satisfaction compared to private insurance holders as well as using less of it's money on non healthcare related costs (pay for execs, legal, stockholders, etc).
as for treatment denied. depends on the case. just like with private but private is worse since there is a profit in denying rather than just budget.
Ontain
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Medicare is already having problems. And treatments are denied under Medicare but by all means.....give everyone in the country that headache.:|
Ontain
Medicare has problems because it insures a much high percent of those that aren't going to be paying. if it was to everyone then you'd have a lot of health ppl paying (like the insurance companies do now). also Medicare has a higher level of satisfaction compared to private insurance holders as well as using less of it's money on non healthcare related costs (pay for execs, legal, stockholders, etc).
as for treatment denied. depends on the case. just like with private but private is worse since there is a profit in denying rather than just budget.
I disagree. with private insurance you can fight for the treatment to be covered. maybe even sue. do you think under the Govt. run option is going to let you do any of those things.That is not what I said. I have no problem with lowering insurance premiums but requiring all individuals above a set income to have it deducted from their pay if they won't voluntarily pay it. Car insurance is required by law. Medical insurance should be as well.Stopping price gouging will bring the cost of insurance down in and of itself.
LJS9502_basic
Well, that is what you said
Rather vague. And I can assure you I'm not paying for others visits to the emergency room. I pay little for my insurance as it is. Used to pay nothing but the percent I pay is neglible. So no...they won't get emergency treatment off me.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="Ontain"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Medicare is already having problems. And treatments are denied under Medicare but by all means.....give everyone in the country that headache.:|
fillini
Medicare has problems because it insures a much high percent of those that aren't going to be paying. if it was to everyone then you'd have a lot of health ppl paying (like the insurance companies do now). also Medicare has a higher level of satisfaction compared to private insurance holders as well as using less of it's money on non healthcare related costs (pay for execs, legal, stockholders, etc).
as for treatment denied. depends on the case. just like with private but private is worse since there is a profit in denying rather than just budget.
I disagree. with private insurance you can fight for the treatment to be covered. maybe even sue. do you think under the Govt. run option is going to let you do any of those things. private insurance do it all the time. they have paid medical experts to say you don't need it or that it's not proven. or they get someone to look over your application for any minor mistake or preexisting condition that you might not have known about to reject you. good luck with suing them. you'll spent even more and will be dead before they pay anythingWhat? You know you pay into that program...right? And those that are under it have at one point. For the most. Do you know anyone that used Medicare? The government rations what it can be used on and it's required at a specific age that it becomes the primary. It's in trouble because government can't adequately provide social programs. The private sector is much better at that. technically we pay in with our taxes. or did you not know that? it's part of FICA on your pay stub. it's in trouble because like SS there are more senors than there are young ppl working to support the program. and also because our wages have not kept pace with the GDP or the cost of medical care. the private sector is "better" because they can deny ppl they don't want for preexisting conditions. they just want relatively health ppl. more profits that way. there's nothing that says they are "better" for the consumer. in fact i already stated that Medicare has higher satisfaction and more percent of the dollar spent on actual care.[QUOTE="Ontain"]
Medicare has problems because it insures a much high percent of those that aren't going to be paying. if it was to everyone then you'd have a lot of health ppl paying (like the insurance companies do now). also Medicare has a higher level of satisfaction compared to private insurance holders as well as using less of it's money on non healthcare related costs (pay for execs, legal, stockholders, etc).
as for treatment denied. depends on the case. just like with private but private is worse since there is a profit in denying rather than just budget.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That is not what I said. I have no problem with lowering insurance premiums but requiring all individuals above a set income to have it deducted from their pay if they won't voluntarily pay it. Car insurance is required by law. Medical insurance should be as well.
Stopping price gouging will bring the cost of insurance down in and of itself.
-Sun_Tzu-
Well, that is what you said
Through my insurance....since I don't pay much at all. Most times that comment is toward insurance. He wasn't clear about his comments at all so I had to assume what he was talking about.Rather vague. And I can assure you I'm not paying for others visits to the emergency room. I pay little for my insurance as it is. Used to pay nothing but the percent I pay is neglible. So no...they won't get emergency treatment off me.LJS9502_basic
What? You know you pay into that program...right? And those that are under it have at one point. For the most. Do you know anyone that used Medicare? The government rations what it can be used on and it's required at a specific age that it becomes the primary. It's in trouble because government can't adequately provide social programs. The private sector is much better at that. Actually it is in trouble becausee our health care system is broken, not because it is a government program. And the private sector rations much more than Medicare does - you get more choice with medicare than you do with private insurance.[QUOTE="Ontain"]
Medicare has problems because it insures a much high percent of those that aren't going to be paying. if it was to everyone then you'd have a lot of health ppl paying (like the insurance companies do now). also Medicare has a higher level of satisfaction compared to private insurance holders as well as using less of it's money on non healthcare related costs (pay for execs, legal, stockholders, etc).
as for treatment denied. depends on the case. just like with private but private is worse since there is a profit in denying rather than just budget.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] [QUOTE="fillini"]
[QUOTE="Ontain"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Medicare is already having problems. And treatments are denied under Medicare but by all means.....give everyone in the country that headache.:|
fillini
Medicare has problems because it insures a much high percent of those that aren't going to be paying. if it was to everyone then you'd have a lot of health ppl paying (like the insurance companies do now). also Medicare has a higher level of satisfaction compared to private insurance holders as well as using less of it's money on non healthcare related costs (pay for execs, legal, stockholders, etc).
as for treatment denied. depends on the case. just like with private but private is worse since there is a profit in denying rather than just budget.
I disagree. with private insurance you can fight for the treatment to be covered. maybe even sue. do you think under the Govt. run option is going to let you do any of those things. You can try to sue, but more likely you'll be sent to an arbitrator paid by the company who you're having a problem with.Folks without insurance can't sue anyone anyway. They do not have insurance.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What? You know you pay into that program...right? And those that are under it have at one point. For the most. Do you know anyone that used Medicare? The government rations what it can be used on and it's required at a specific age that it becomes the primary. It's in trouble because government can't adequately provide social programs. The private sector is much better at that. technically we pay in with our taxes. or did you not know that? it's part of FICA on your pay stub. it's in trouble because like SS there are more senors than there are young ppl working to support the program. and also because our wages have not kept pace with the GDP or the cost of medical care. the private sector is "better" because they can deny ppl they don't want for preexisting conditions. they just want relatively health ppl. more profits that way. there's nothing that says they are "better" for the consumer. in fact i already stated that Medicare has higher satisfaction and more percent of the dollar spent on actual care.Uh....I'd guess since I told you that you pay in that I did know that dude.:| You did catch my first sentence....right?[QUOTE="Ontain"]
Medicare has problems because it insures a much high percent of those that aren't going to be paying. if it was to everyone then you'd have a lot of health ppl paying (like the insurance companies do now). also Medicare has a higher level of satisfaction compared to private insurance holders as well as using less of it's money on non healthcare related costs (pay for execs, legal, stockholders, etc).
as for treatment denied. depends on the case. just like with private but private is worse since there is a profit in denying rather than just budget.
Ontain
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That is not what I said. I have no problem with lowering insurance premiums but requiring all individuals above a set income to have it deducted from their pay if they won't voluntarily pay it. Car insurance is required by law. Medical insurance should be as well.
Stopping price gouging will bring the cost of insurance down in and of itself.
LJS9502_basic
Well, that is what you said
Through my insurance....since I don't pay much at all. Most times that comment is toward insurance. He wasn't clear about his comments at all so I had to assume what he was talking about. just admit you were owned.Rather vague. And I can assure you I'm not paying for others visits to the emergency room. I pay little for my insurance as it is. Used to pay nothing but the percent I pay is neglible. So no...they won't get emergency treatment off me.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What? You know you pay into that program...right? And those that are under it have at one point. For the most. Do you know anyone that used Medicare? The government rations what it can be used on and it's required at a specific age that it becomes the primary. It's in trouble because government can't adequately provide social programs. The private sector is much better at that. Actually it is in trouble becausee our health care system is broken, not because it is a government program. And the private sector rations much more than Medicare does - you get more choice with medicare than you do with private insurance. Really? The insurance companies in the health care business are healthy enough....but the government isn't. You don't see the problem?[QUOTE="Ontain"]
Medicare has problems because it insures a much high percent of those that aren't going to be paying. if it was to everyone then you'd have a lot of health ppl paying (like the insurance companies do now). also Medicare has a higher level of satisfaction compared to private insurance holders as well as using less of it's money on non healthcare related costs (pay for execs, legal, stockholders, etc).
as for treatment denied. depends on the case. just like with private but private is worse since there is a profit in denying rather than just budget.
-Sun_Tzu-
just admit you were owned.Free_MarxetI wasn't. And if you read my first post you'd see how I interpreted his vague post. I was talking about insurance premiums.:roll:
Uh....I'd guess since I told you that you pay in that I did know that dude.:| You did catch my first sentence....right? sorry misread your first sentence though the rest address your comments about Medicare being in trouble.[QUOTE="Ontain"] technically we pay in with our taxes. or did you not know that? it's part of FICA on your pay stub. it's in trouble because like SS there are more senors than there are young ppl working to support the program. and also because our wages have not kept pace with the GDP or the cost of medical care. the private sector is "better" because they can deny ppl they don't want for preexisting conditions. they just want relatively health ppl. more profits that way. there's nothing that says they are "better" for the consumer. in fact i already stated that Medicare has higher satisfaction and more percent of the dollar spent on actual care.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Uh....I'd guess since I told you that you pay in that I did know that dude.:| You did catch my first sentence....right? sorry misread your first sentence though the rest address your comments about Medicare being in trouble. As for the rest of your comment....there are more senors than there used to be but I doubt there are more senors than working people. You'd have to provide data on the statistic.[QUOTE="Ontain"] technically we pay in with our taxes. or did you not know that? it's part of FICA on your pay stub. it's in trouble because like SS there are more senors than there are young ppl working to support the program. and also because our wages have not kept pace with the GDP or the cost of medical care. the private sector is "better" because they can deny ppl they don't want for preexisting conditions. they just want relatively health ppl. more profits that way. there's nothing that says they are "better" for the consumer. in fact i already stated that Medicare has higher satisfaction and more percent of the dollar spent on actual care.Ontain
Actually it is in trouble becausee our health care system is broken, not because it is a government program. And the private sector rations much more than Medicare does - you get more choice with medicare than you do with private insurance. Really? The insurance companies in the health care business are healthy enough....but the government isn't. You don't see the problem? as said many times. Private gets to pick and choose the healthy ppl and dumps the really expensive ppl. the whole business is about providing as little care as possible in order to make profit. it was on the Nixon tapes when the first HMO's started.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What? You know you pay into that program...right? And those that are under it have at one point. For the most. Do you know anyone that used Medicare? The government rations what it can be used on and it's required at a specific age that it becomes the primary. It's in trouble because government can't adequately provide social programs. The private sector is much better at that.
LJS9502_basic
well we're talking about the ppl that don't have insurance. most of those ppl can't afford an emergency room bill. we're talking thousands.That old arguement about paying for someone elses emergency visit would only apply if they didn't pay their bill.
corwinn01
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Really? The insurance companies in the health care business are healthy enough....but the government isn't. You don't see the problem? as said many times. Private gets to pick and choose the healthy ppl and dumps the really expensive ppl. the whole business is about providing as little care as possible in order to make profit. it was on the Nixon tapes when the first HMO's started. The government picks and chooses what tests, treatments, and drugs are allowed. The difference is everyone suffers under the government plan.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Actually it is in trouble becausee our health care system is broken, not because it is a government program. And the private sector rations much more than Medicare does - you get more choice with medicare than you do with private insurance. Ontain
Actually it is in trouble becausee our health care system is broken, not because it is a government program. And the private sector rations much more than Medicare does - you get more choice with medicare than you do with private insurance. Really? The insurance companies in the health care business are healthy enough....but the government isn't. You don't see the problem? Not quite sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the insurance companies are healthy in the sense that they are financially sound?[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What? You know you pay into that program...right? And those that are under it have at one point. For the most. Do you know anyone that used Medicare? The government rations what it can be used on and it's required at a specific age that it becomes the primary. It's in trouble because government can't adequately provide social programs. The private sector is much better at that.
LJS9502_basic
as said many times. Private gets to pick and choose the healthy ppl and dumps the really expensive ppl. the whole business is about providing as little care as possible in order to make profit. it was on the Nixon tapes when the first HMO's started. The government picks and chooses what tests, treatments, and drugs are allowed. The difference is everyone suffers under the government plan. The private sector picks and chooses what tests, treatments, drugs, doctors, hostpitals, ect. are allowed at a much higher rate than the government does with medicare.[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Really? The insurance companies in the health care business are healthy enough....but the government isn't. You don't see the problem?
LJS9502_basic
america jus get it. if it measns savibng the lives of say 100 people isn't it worth it. if the uk NEVER HAD OUR NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE well 1. id be **** 2. millions of doctors would be out of work 3. hudered of thousands would diebecause they cannot afored the insurance
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Really? The insurance companies in the health care business are healthy enough....but the government isn't. You don't see the problem? as said many times. Private gets to pick and choose the healthy ppl and dumps the really expensive ppl. the whole business is about providing as little care as possible in order to make profit. it was on the Nixon tapes when the first HMO's started. Thats not how it happens. When you start a new job, there is a period of open enrollment. Insurance companies don't pick or choose in instances like that, they take anyone. My wife had our first born three days after my insurance kicked in. three years before that she had a brain hemmorhage, she was picked up by her employer when she started, she got care for the past treatment. If your shopping for individual insurance its true, but the majority of americans get their insurance from employee plans.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Actually it is in trouble becausee our health care system is broken, not because it is a government program. And the private sector rations much more than Medicare does - you get more choice with medicare than you do with private insurance. Ontain
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The government picks and chooses what tests, treatments, and drugs are allowed. The difference is everyone suffers under the government plan. The private sector picks and chooses what tests, treatments, drugs, doctors, hostpitals, ect. are allowed at a much higher rate than the government does with medicare.Doctors know how to code the treatment and tests to pass. That isn't allowed under the government.;)[QUOTE="Ontain"] as said many times. Private gets to pick and choose the healthy ppl and dumps the really expensive ppl. the whole business is about providing as little care as possible in order to make profit. it was on the Nixon tapes when the first HMO's started. -Sun_Tzu-
True. But as of now the hospitals usually care for them anyway and past the cost on to the insured. Whats going to happen when the people with the money run out of it? They care for them to some extent. In general the uninsured are denied most long term care, but get emergency care. I prices are raised for the insured to make up for the uninsured to some extent. Yet there is some weird math in there too. Insurance companies negotiate prices, so the base price (if you were to pay out of pocket for some reason) is often much higher than what insurance pays. Still high compared to most every nation in the world, but there is a weird price variation in there. Also it is not all just passed onto insurance companies, counties, states, and the federal government pick up most of that tab as it is anyway. Ironically many state studies have shown that sate budget cutting to state health care programs just pass the buck onto a later date as folks just end up going in to the hospital at a later date for more expensive work.[QUOTE="duxup"]
Folks without insurance can't sue anyone anyway. They do not have insurance.
fillini
As for the rest of your comment....there are more senors than there used to be but I doubt there are more senors than working people. You'd have to provide data on the statistic.LJS9502_basiclet me then clarify. the ratio is now so that what's coming in from the current workforce is less than services received. either way it's a population problem something that private insurers don't need to deal with.
The private sector picks and chooses what tests, treatments, drugs, doctors, hostpitals, ect. are allowed at a much higher rate than the government does with medicare.Doctors know how to code the treatment and tests to pass. That isn't allowed under the government.;) Huh? Insurance companies can and do refuse treatment regardless of a doctor's recommendation.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The government picks and chooses what tests, treatments, and drugs are allowed. The difference is everyone suffers under the government plan.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doctors know how to code the treatment and tests to pass. That isn't allowed under the government.;) Huh? Insurance companies can and do refuse treatment regardless of a doctor's recommendation. They can....but not as high a percentage as government care. Doctor's push through a lot.....they know how to play the game.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The private sector picks and chooses what tests, treatments, drugs, doctors, hostpitals, ect. are allowed at a much higher rate than the government does with medicare.duxup
I wasn't. And if you read my first post you'd see how I interpreted his vague post. I was talking about insurance premiums.:roll: I see you took quite an offense to me being right.[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] just admit you were owned.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I wasn't. And if you read my first post you'd see how I interpreted his vague post. I was talking about insurance premiums.:roll: I see you took quite an offense to me being right.I don't take offense....and you weren't right. We were talking two different things entirely.....those who need to post they are right invariably are not.[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"] just admit you were owned.Free_Marxet
Huh? Insurance companies can and do refuse treatment regardless of a doctor's recommendation. They can....but not as high a percentage as government care. Doctor's push through a lot.....they know how to play the game. I couldnt agree more, dont hate the player, hate the game![QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doctors know how to code the treatment and tests to pass. That isn't allowed under the government.;)
LJS9502_basic
I see you took quite an offense to me being right.I don't take offense....and you weren't right. We were talking two different things entirely.....those who need to post they are right invariably are not. Funny how you just posted how I was wrong, leaving the only option as you being right. You lose by your own rules, as usual.[QUOTE="Free_Marxet"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I wasn't. And if you read my first post you'd see how I interpreted his vague post. I was talking about insurance premiums.:roll:
LJS9502_basic
Huh? Insurance companies can and do refuse treatment regardless of a doctor's recommendation. They can....but not as high a percentage as government care. Doctor's push through a lot.....they know how to play the game. Any evidence of that? Because that doesn't seem to be the case.[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doctors know how to code the treatment and tests to pass. That isn't allowed under the government.;)
LJS9502_basic
"Medicare beneficiaries are less likely to report not getting needed services. Twelve percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported going without care, such as prescribed medications or recommended tests, because of cost restraints. Of individuals with employer-based plans, 26 percent reported experiencing these cost/access issues."
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2009/May/Meeting-Enrollees-Needs.aspx
UK! please you guys had over 75 people die in 2007 of minor infections picked up from just overcrowding in your hospitals. Not to mention the ambulance lines. What is this? the uk was having such a long wait time in their ERs, two + hours, they enacted furhter legislation to MAKE the hospital see the patients within 45 minutes. Solution: park the ambulances outside with the patients in them, so the timer doesn't start. I don't think the UK gets it. Every time the citizens of the UK complain; their government says they just don't appreciate what they have and the papers tell a sob story of a new immigrant from Ghana who is sooo appreciative of the level of care they recvd.america jus get it. if it measns savibng the lives of say 100 people isn't it worth it. if the uk NEVER HAD OUR NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE well 1. id be **** 2. millions of doctors would be out of work 3. hudered of thousands would diebecause they cannot afored the insurance
BenBenBen93
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment