Healthcare Bill vs. US Senate

The Other Guy

The Other Guy

Spam King
Well, let's see how this goes. Personally, I'm not entirely sure that this plan does enough, but to quote my local congressman, doing nothing is not an option.

And before you say that the government can't run anything correctly, let's not forget America's entirely tax-funded government-run system that is the best in the world. :salute:

Thoughts?
 
The Other Guy said:
Well, let's see how this goes. Personally, I'm not entirely sure that this plan does enough, but to quote my local congressman, doing nothing is not an option.

And before you say that the government can't run anything correctly, let's not forget America's entirely tax-funded government-run system that is the best in the world. :salute:

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Hey governments can run anything they just do it inefficiently.
 
absolutely no part of the government runs efficently, also do we wont the same government that made the us tax code doing something like health care.
 
Basically it comes down to: Americans are too incompetent to make it work.
It's not what I'm saying, it seems to be what Americans are saying.
Why is it that governments the world over seem to be able to do it, but a government staffed by Americans (according to the critics) can't?
 
Bacara said:
absolutely no part of the government runs efficently, also do we wont the same government that made the us tax code doing something like health care.
Click to expand...

Well I hardly expect that the same guys that did the tax code will be doing operations so I don't think that will be an issue.

The problem is that you have vast numbers of people without health coverage and so far I have not met anyone who has actually required on going long term treatment who is happy with the current system (in fact I personally know half a dozen who have effectively been bankrupted by medical care due to being dropped by health insurance once the bills became too much), it is because of this that I believe inefficient but guaranteed medical insurance run via a government mandate is still better than the current system.
 
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors
 
These government run programs aren't expected to run efficiently but they are supposed to provide an essential service to the public at affordable prices.
Why can't you get that in your head?
We KNOW government run programs are inefficient. That's why the government doesn't run everything. However, there are services that are very important and must be run at an affordable cost nation wide regardless of whether it makes a loss or not.
The insurance companies are too similar and they generally face the same problems. If you've been following the other threads I've been getting a lotof crap on, you'd know that I am definitely pro-capitalism but sometimes there are exceptions to these rules.
According to this argument we should disband the military for being inefficient and unable to create any profit.
 
its not only that, when i tare my acl sacking some helpless quarterback, i wont to go to the hospital, and get an mri NOW, i dont wont to wait, while i am waiting could be in surgery and physical threapy getting ready for next season. In nationalized health, would have to wait up to six months for a MRI, and while i was waiting, i could do more determental damage to my ligaments, i wont to see my doctor, and i wont to see her now
 
Not sure who is feeding you your "facts" but I live with both "nationalised" health care and private health care and if I need any medical treatment I usually get it immediately on private health but should the guy down the road who doesn't have private insurance have the same injury he will still get exactly the same care.

The only difference in treatment is the quality of the optional aspects of the case, for example I get private rooms, menu dining and all the bells and whistles and he doesn't.

Trust me having seen both your system and ours I would take ours any day not because our doctors or facilities are better because they arent but because our system gives everyone at least the basics in health care and those that can afford it have the luxuries of the private system.
 
yes but will they allows us to keep our insurance, and if they do, will i still pay for the guy who weighs 500 pounds and smokes 3 packs a day, while i dont use it?
 
I have no idea what the US is proposing so I cant answer point 1.

Point 2, yes you probably will pay for the 500lb smoker but at the same time you may find yourself in a position where you or your family need it and don't have the money to pay for it.
These are the swings and roundabouts of prepaid health systems.
 
Bacara, I also had partially socialized healthcare and my wait times were far shorter than they were in the US.
You realize this is why the insurance fails?
If you're not likely to be sick, the insurance is too expensive so you decide not to do it.
If you are likely to be sick, you realize you should buy a policy anyway.
Then the insurance company is stuck with loads of people who are likely to be sick and not enough folks who are not likely to be sick paying.
So they can't afford to pay out everyone so they have to hire investigators who, if they find any inconsistency, determine whether this warrants paying or not. And often lots of people who are really ill will have their insurance companies bail out on them. Because the insurance company can't afford it.
And somehow for giving lousy coverage, these companies are managing to get filthy rich as well. Lousy, expensive product + huge profits = WRONG.
Understand?
The assumption is that the good product will bring profits and bad products will bring losses. If bad products bring in profits, it needs a good looking at.
 
Last edited:
may i ask why the US finds it so difficult to do what most of the modern industrialized world has already done?
 
im far from partisan, im quite liberal in most social issues, and im more conservative on fiscal issues. That whole phrase "all of europe is doing so we should to" WE have the largest economy in the world and the most freedoms, i like america the way it is. Also something needs to be done by the issue, no one, exept exsteme right wingers, disputes that but to jump on socialized health care is careless "That government is best which governs the least" Thoreau

heres a couple of interesting links
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/25/10-surprising-facts-about-american-health-care/
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/editorial-solution_to_health_care_crisis.htm
 
Last edited:
It's not just Europe.
Largest economy is not something you can simply rest on as it is also an indicator of not necessarily now but how well you have done in the past decades.
As for more freedom than anywhere else, that's a little up for debate but certainly one of the most free societies in the world.
 
Bacara said:
im far from partisan, im quite liberal in most social issues, and im more conservative on fiscal issues. That whole phrase "all of europe is doing so we should to" WE have the largest economy in the world and the most freedoms, i like america the way it is. Also something needs to be done by the issue, no one, exept exsteme right wingers, disputes that but to jump on socialized health care is careless "That government is best which governs the least" Thoreau

heres a couple of interesting links
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/25/10-surprising-facts-about-american-health-care/
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/editorial-solution_to_health_care_crisis.htm
Click to expand...

Bacara

Take it from someone who has been living in Europe for the past 12 years, our healthcare system sucks, the European system is far better. Put it to you this way, when I move back there is a special program that France has that allows you to stay on their system even though you are abroad. You have to pay for it, but at least you avoid the dirty tricks of the HMOs, -like dropping your policy the moment you get sick.
 
The thing that bothers me that almost every plan, shows me the eventual death of all the insurance companies:( what about those jobs? Losing them and putting more people out of work, while at the same time, it was the incentive of the dollar that allowed our health care system to act somewhat quickly to one of their clients. Now with the government running it just going to see the doctor may take forever. There is no incentive.

But, once you kill the insurance companies, there is no going back.
 
Actually there would be a way back.
Most countries that have public insurance also have private insurance. Just because the public sector is there it doesn't mean that the private sector ceases to exist. It does however, force them to operate more honestly since if their service is not reliable, over things like health care, if given the choice, people will choose reliability.
It's like saying the economy class seats on an airline will make first class and business class seats a thing of the past. Not true.
Ideally there would be a public version of just about every service or industry but this would not be sustainable since public run programs are inherently bad at turning out a profit and do tend to be wasteful. So it's best to simply save these for the most important industries (school, healthcare, what have you). Public option does not mean the private sector will go out of business though it does mean the less competitive ones will.
Even if there is a free cafeteria for all, most people will still go to the Italian restaurant, the Irish pub, the Chinese takeout etc. But let's say you've been really out of luck, you've lost everything. You can still get food. You won't have much of a choice but you'll still be able to get it.
Now that's just an example. I don't advocate nation wide tax run cafeterias since I haven't exactly put a lot of thought into that specific idea. I'm just trying to show you how a nation wide, tax run entity doesn't automatically put the private sector out of business.
The only thing that can really end the private sector will be to illegalize it, and that's when you start stepping into the territory of Communism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top