USA health system... umm... what the hell?!

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
Wicky_42 said:
emeraldrafael said:
Wicky_42 said:
On top of that, this country has so many people (illegal immigrants, for example) that don't pay taxes. This means that people would be leeching the system while making everyone else pay for it.
Or you could have a national insurance card or other form of citizenship identification. Then again, what do you do about all those illegals using your roads ...
You dont really Pay for a road. I mean, you pay taxes on it for the maintance, and occasionally a toll road, but to actually charge someone for using a road, that would mean that every connecting intersection would involve a toll post, and no country would do that.
Kinda my point. Socialised roads are a given pretty much everywhere, without concerns about non-tax payers using them. I was drawing a loose comparison across to socialised healthcare, though obviously the situation's a bit different.
ewll, I guess it kinda works, its just, you could go your whole life without needing a major medical surgery (including birth). So i think people in America see it as why should I pay for someone else, and the ones that actually THINK about it think why should i have to pay for a gamble (kinda like any kinda insurance, only you're paying for it for yourself).
 

Wicky_42

New member
Sep 15, 2008
2,468
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
Wicky_42 said:
emeraldrafael said:
Wicky_42 said:
On top of that, this country has so many people (illegal immigrants, for example) that don't pay taxes. This means that people would be leeching the system while making everyone else pay for it.
Or you could have a national insurance card or other form of citizenship identification. Then again, what do you do about all those illegals using your roads ...
You dont really Pay for a road. I mean, you pay taxes on it for the maintance, and occasionally a toll road, but to actually charge someone for using a road, that would mean that every connecting intersection would involve a toll post, and no country would do that.
Kinda my point. Socialised roads are a given pretty much everywhere, without concerns about non-tax payers using them. I was drawing a loose comparison across to socialised healthcare, though obviously the situation's a bit different.
ewll, I guess it kinda works, its just, you could go your whole life without needing a major medical surgery (including birth). So i think people in America see it as why should I pay for someone else, and the ones that actually THINK about it think why should i have to pay for a gamble (kinda like any kinda insurance, only you're paying for it for yourself).
It's EXACTLY like insurance; you pay a little to spread the risk over many. Only where with private insurance you have to apply for it every time you want it and the company you are with makes its profit on NOT helping you, with a national system for most things you just turn up and get the treatment you need. The bullshit about 'paying for other people's operations' applies to ANY insurance scheme you go with, it's just if it's private the really you are at FAR more risk as an individual than if it's a public system.
 

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
The corporate option....

Let me explain it this way as I have when addressing credit Companies: Companies exist to make money for their share holders!

These companies don't care about providing a service: they care about making a profit off of said service. As hospital costs in the US are so high it is a very hard business to make money in which is why many are struggling when they are forced to give the coverage they promised. Given that they have the bottom line as the top priority, it is only natural for them to try and find every loophole out of payment as possible. It is why these horror stories exist, they companies have to make money some how. Tricks such as taking on people with 'pre-existing conditions,' knowing full well they can deny service at any time for this excuse, are common. Often you won't find out until after you paid them a few years worth of money then try and claim the service you believed had covered you.

I do admit the rate of 'bad dealings' is a lot less then the stories make it sound but the truth does ring true: These Companies exist to make money and paying out huge amounts, more then you pay in, is not a good way to make money. The fact people don't seem to grasp this fact always confuses me, because they will rather take the word of a companies that they are there 'for the sole purpose of giving excellent care to the people in need.'

The government option doesn't require profit margins: the government already can take your money without having to trick it out of you.

Hence why there is also truth to the fact the largest anti-government option PR campaign is run by insurance companies. Proving once more people will listen more to those who want to get their money over those who have to clean up the mess the previous system is causing. Think on this too, as these companies are for profit: There has to be less profits lost by spending lots of money to try and squish the government option then will be lost with this option in place.

If the government is going to be worse then the private sector then why all the fear?

I honestly feel this will force the private sector to have to do better then the government option. Right now the only options are death or insurance, meaning they can do nearly anything they want to you and you have no other choice in the matter. The government option, even if it is 'not as good' means you do have other options and then there is the shocking reality: It could be better then the private sector! If they are forced to do it better then the government, offering the same services as we see today, then it will cost more money in an already struggling industry. That is why they want to squash the government option: They will have to start doing the job they boast they do; provide the care and services they promised at a better then government level.

How can they make money doing that?

So even if you disagree with a government option, keep in mind how much honest and better it will make the private sector option. Should you get screwed over by the private sector still? Well at least you have more options then just 'suffer through it or/and die' available to you. How can that be a bad thing?

Caption: Bijutsu lifichi - Lift your chi with jujitsu?
 

Jake the Snake

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,141
0
0
Laxman9292 said:
Mezmer said:
dehboy said:
Mezmer said:
Because the right wing in this country loves to oppose any kind of reform the left wants. They employ fear tactics (something that is so petty and infuriating in its effectiveness it frankly makes me want to scream) and for some reason, every idiot in the country believes them. They keep prattling: We have the best health care system in the world!

No. We don't. Not by a long shot.

Everyone deserves coverage. Except no one is really willing to pay for it. I swear to god, I have no idea why people are so deathly afraid of raising taxes in this country. IT'S HOW LITERALLY EVERYTHING GETS PAID FOR. And the rich have absolutely no leg to stand on. Shut up, if you're worth more than $10 million dollars, you're never going to poor, your money makes more money than you could ever possibly spend it, and it's your duty as a citizen to help your countrymen. You know, it's a very basic concept we're taught to do at a very young age: Share. I will never understand the irrational behavior that is greed.
Haha, your reasoning is exactly what is wrong with America. How old are you? Just because some people take risks with their money and their risks pay off don't mean YOU should be rewarded with their money. They worked hard to earn their money, it is THEIR right to do with it as they please. Raising taxes is terrible. The more "free" programs are there, the less incentive there is to work hard and get ahead in life. If we lived in a socialist, "free" country, then we'd have no iPhones. Oh, you think we would? Well, if Steve Jobs didn't get any money from inventing the latest and greatest in technology, what incentive is there to do it? To help out his fellow countrymen? Please. Stop being so ignorant.
I'm 17. Almost 18. Clearly you are a cynic, and have a very limited understanding about how people and government work. Don't give me that "I earned everything I made, and I deserve every last penny of it". Please, give me a break, you're a human being. Just like the rest of us. If you're rich you either knew the right people, were driven, and worked hard, and let's face it, you definitely had help from lots of different people along the way, or you were born into it. You didn't do it all by yourself. Either way, are you seriously going to tell me 1 person out of a world full of billions of people, deserves to be obscenely rich, while there are millions of people who can barely afford to eat? You stop being naive. I'm not saying you have to give away your entire fucking fortune, but who the hell do you think you are? Human life is human life. Your status in society doesn't somehow make you better than the rest of the populace. And if you think it does, frankly, you disgust me.

And helping eliminate things like poverty and supporting things like health care for all people, and better education by giving tax money to them helps move society forward, and actually will make society MORE prosperous. And that's all that matters. The world doesn't care about you as a person. The world cares about what you can contribute to society. People can live their lives without fear, and do what they want to do. Poor people can actually be given a chance at doing something great, and have their potential for things like the arts, math and science realized. Maybe the next Albert Einstein lives in the ghetto, but has no way of achieving greatness because of the lack of opportunity life gave him.

Ambition is not created by competition. I'm a naturally driven person. I can't be the only one. I want to be a actor and a writer. I'm not doing those things because I want to be rich. I'm doing them because it's something I really want to do. If I'm good at it, society will reward me.

But I won't get paid, you say? Sir, I want you to do some research on the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway and Sweden). They're some of the happiest, lowest crime, lowest poverty countries and successful economies in the world. Socialistic free market capitalism can exist (eg IKEA). And it works quite well.

But what do I know? I'm just some naive young optimist.
So everyone DESERVES coverage? Why? What gives them that right to demand coverage if they can't pay for it? Just because they need it? Does their need qualify them to drain obscene amounts of money from people who have money? Keep in mind that a single health care claim could range in the low thousands to $20,000 or even higher as seen here. So, someone has to pay $20,000 dollars in the end, is it fair to make someone who worked hard to get money to have to give that up just because the poor "need" it? (Need in parentheses because there will inevitably be scammers taking even more money for themselves as opposed to your precious "needy")

Now, a lot of people don't usually have a problem helping out a fellow human. But what I have a problem with, and so do most people opposing this, is having someone tell me what I have to do with MY money. If I want to help out a cause I think is worthy, then I'll donate to it. But fuck you if you think you can tell me who deserves my money. The only person who deserves my money is ME, and whoever I feel like giving it to. What about you makes you better than me, that you can tell me what I have to do with my money? If status doesn't make you any better than me, or vice-versa then what right do you have to boss me around?

You say that your status doesn't make you better than anyone else? Try practicing what you preach. Does a persons status as a poor person who "needs" something make them better than a rich person who already has what they "need"? Then shit, sign me up. As a college student who has a part-time job I clearly "need" some money. Where does the line form? Does not having money entitle you to take money from rich people because you "need" money? No that just makes you a thief.

And that is why you're a naive optimist.
Yes. What I'm telling you is everyone deserves coverage. Like I said, what gives you the right to coverage that someone else can't have? You just happen to be lucky enough to be born into a family that could afford it. Do you not think it's a little fucked up on whether you should be allowed to live or die is dependent on how much money you have? It's always easy to oppose something when you aren't the one who's in need.

The whole MINE MINE MINE mentality you preach is irrational. No one is targeting you. No one is going to take ALL of your money. Everyone is a part of the system. You. Me. Your friends. My friends. That family down the street. We're all giving money to take care of our society and one another. You're not giving money in taxes to a specific person. You're giving them to the government to distribute among the entire populace. From there it is used for any number of things. But imagine if you didn't have to pay for health care to a big corporation anymore. If the government promised that by paying your taxes (something everyone does anyway) you are fully covered. We're all paying to support each other. No one is going to come up to your door and say: Oh, this person needs 20 grand to pay for an operation. Give it here. Right now. That's definitely not how it'd work.

And I think you'd be interested to hear how college works in a socialistic free market democracy. In Scandinavia, for example, students are actually given a stipend to go to college. Yes. The government PAYS YOU to go to school. Even if it was just to public universities, you must agree having more college educated people is a good thing, right?

There are no "poor" people in these countries either because the higher taxes allow minimum wage to be high enough for a person to live off of it (I think somewhere around $22/hr).

And you do realize the "need" I'm referring to is giving a person enough money to feed, clothe, and shelter their family, right? Because right now, there are lots of people who can't even do that. Or do you think that these people don't deserve those things. This isn't the third world. This is America. Everyone here should be able to live.
 

Jake the Snake

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,141
0
0
Laxman9292 said:
Mezmer said:
CM156 said:
Mezmer said:
Everyone deserves coverage. Except no one is really willing to pay for it. I swear to god, I have no idea why people are so deathly afraid of raising taxes in this country. IT'S HOW LITERALLY EVERYTHING GETS PAID FOR. And the rich have absolutely no leg to stand on. Shut up, if you're worth more than $10 million dollars, you're never going to poor, your money makes more money than you could ever possibly spend it, and it's your duty as a citizen to help your countrymen. You know, it's a very basic concept we're taught to do at a very young age: Share. I will never understand the irrational behavior that is greed.
Let me tell you a little story.

My brother once saved up all of his money and bought a ball. He brought it to school and would play with it with his friends. However, the teacher saw this, and decided that everyone should get a chance to play with the ball. For the next few days, my brother got next to no time to be able to use what he had earned. And the people who used it were not at all kind with it either. The next week, he didn't bring the ball back. So rather then a few people getting to play with it, no one did. Now, would you call my brother greedy? Or would you say that he was in the right for not sharing what he had earned because it was done so by force? Me? I think what he did was right.

Let me ask you something, if you could work for 6 months of the year, and take the rest off and earn only 10% less then you did if you worked year round, which would you choose? I mean, I don't think that gives people much of a reason to want to work more. But hey, that's just me.

I want people to get health care, I just don't think that raising taxes on the rich is the best way to do it. Perhaps reform medical malpractace and put damage caps back in.
But the deal with the ball is it involves ownership of a specific object. Your well within your right to own something. But wealth is something else. It's really, at its base, intangible. It's just a number. And right now the distribution of that number is severely uneven in this country, to the point where it's detrimental to progress. Unfortunately, humans are selfish and shortsighted by nature, and unable to see the long term benefits what raising taxes does. Now, granted, the government still needs to be responsible with the money its given. We have to live within our means, and stop borrowing money and spending more then we have. We should be using the money to pay back our debts, and ensuring basic things like the right to live (medical care) to all people. Taxes are the only way to pay for that. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

The funny thing is, if you look at socialistic free market governments like Denmark, Norway and Sweden, you'd see the good high taxes can bring. Hilariously low crime, low poverty, longer life expectancy, and they're some of the happiest countries in the world. Without causing all the problems of "laziness" and "no ambition" and "end of the economic world" FOX news would like you to believe.
If money is intangible then give me all your money. Obviously you have no use for such an intangible thing. See how well you get along without your intangible money. You're an idiot if you think that just because it is a number that money is intangible. Money holds value. And exchanging money is an exchange of values for services that are equal to a value set by the person performing the service. Money is a very real thing and very tangible. That number represents how much value you have and what you can get in return for those numbers. See that is the problem, people like you, who believe that money is intangible and that it is just a number, don't realize how wrong you are and how you're taking bread out of the mouth of the rich to feed the poor. And when you keep coming back eventually the "rich" wont have any bread left for you to take. But you don't understand that, "Oh they're rich they can afford to pitch in a few extra bucks here, and here. Oh and over here and there as well. Whats that? There's nothing left to take? Impossible, they're rich and money is just an intangible number anyways. Herp de Derp."

You should read Atlas Shrugged. Honestly, yes it is a depressing fear-mongering book on the "evils" of Communism, and whatever every other ignorant person who has never actually read it but knows that Ayn Rand "hates poor people" because everyone else says that. But actually the book is a hypothetical scenario of Socialism's logical conclusion. The people who are responsible for all the innovation in the world (read: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, rich people) decide they are sick of people telling them what they have to do with their money, who "deserves" their products for free, or who "needs" them. They decide to pull out and abandon the country and live by themselves. Now what do you think happens to a country of poor people all clamoring that their "need" is greatest and therefore they deserve the money? Yes it is a wildly unrealistic outcome but then again, isn't every dystopian story? The point is to illustrate a point and give a warning, not to say this is what's gonna happen.
I think I see the issue here. You believe I'm a Communist, or maybe associate Socialism and Communism as the same thing. They're not. Communism is stupid. The government controls EVERYTHING, and NO BUSINESS is allowed to be privately owned. That's stupid. That would never happen in the US, and that's not what I'm condoning. I'm not trying to hit rich people with a stick until their pinata o' money finally cracks open. I'm just saying bridge the gap between the rich and the poor a bit. It's higher than it's ever been in US history, thanks largely in part to conservative free market policies that are irresponsible and provide absolutely no business regulation. You do realize that's why we're in our current economic crisis, correct? It was greed. The people on Wall Street caused the housing market to inflate to the point where it burst. But that's getting off topic. I don't think EVERY service should be made available to every one. Do you really think I believe everyone deserves an iPhone? I don't even have an iPhone. I'm talking about fundamental things to survive. Food. Medical care. Shelter. A person in the 1st world deserves a right to these things. Everyone pays for it. That's why it's called socialism. Just the rich pay proportionally more, because they have more money.

For example, let's say, it's decided everyone in the US now has to pay 20% percent income tax (I'm just making up a number, I don't know what it would actually be). If we started there, would that seem fair to you? Would that be a good compromise? Everyone's paying the same, just 20% of billions of dollars is more than 20% of 20 grand a year (the poverty line).

How I'd like it personally? This is a rough outline but:Let's say if you're below the poverty line, (20 Grand a year is it?) you pay 10 - 15% (depending how low you are income wise), and if you're in the upper middle class (I have no idea, like more than 100 grand a year?) you start having to pay from 21 - 30. But there's a cap. Let's say 30% for the very rich. (Making millions of dollars and up). Call me insane, but that seems fair to me.

And people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs will never run out of money. Ever. Hell, Mr. Gates gives almost ALL of his money away to charity, and he still makes it all back.
 

Laxman9292

New member
Feb 6, 2009
457
0
0
DracoSuave said:
Laxman9292 said:
Taxes go to things like public works, military, research, and other shit like that. Now you're talking about a point that is still debated by politicians trying to get elected (Lower taxes but less government funded crap Vs. More government funded crap but higher taxes), and there is really no answer to that. I, personally, would rather have lower taxes and more freedom to do what I want, rather than pay higher taxes but have the government tell me what health care I get. But there are people who feel differently and that's what the argument is about.
That's not your choice at this point.

The choice is:

Increase revenue to Balance the deficit

or

Country collapses.

I like how you THINK the choice is between lower taxes and lower spending, I think it's cute and quaint that a country with a TRILLION dollar deficit on this budget year -alone- thinks that it has these options. It's quaint.

It's like when little children believe in santa claus, and other such cute imaginary fictions.

Laxman9292 said:
And that is why you're a naive optimist.
Your economy is utter shit, and thinking 'not helping working people keep healthy enough to keep what little is left in the economy' is actually valid in the modern world is as quaint as thinking that lowering taxes is going to prevent your country from economic self-destruction.

How's that tooth fairy working out for ya?
How about keeping more money in circulation by having low taxes so that more people can stimulate the economy.
And it isn't just our economy buddy, it's global. Ya know, the European sovereign debt crisis? How's Greece's economy doing again?
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
scott91575 said:
You do realize liberal and socialism do not go hand in hand, and neither does conservative with capitalism. In fact, in many countries, just the opposite would be true. A liberal in Australia is no the same as we think of a liberal in the US.

Liberal and conservative have a more social connotation in the US, and has little to do with health care.
That's probably why I used qualifiers (liberal in quotations, several adjectives preceding conservative).

And they have everything to do with healthcare in the United States. You're a liberal socialist hippie if you think healthcare should be universal. You're a conservative republican douche if you think healthcare should be privatized. That's the nature of our completely idiotic political landscape at this time.
 

Mouse One

New member
Jan 22, 2011
328
0
0
I wonder how many of the "poor people don't deserve healthcare" sorts in this thread would turn down disaster relief if a natural disaster destroyed their town.
 

TheGreatCoolEnergy

New member
Aug 30, 2009
2,581
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
You dont really Pay for a road. I mean, you pay taxes on it for the maintance, and occasionally a toll road, but to actually charge someone for using a road, that would mean that every connecting intersection would involve a toll post, and no country would do that.
Oceania probably tried it at one point
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
Laxman9292 said:
DracoSuave said:
Laxman9292 said:
Taxes go to things like public works, military, research, and other shit like that. Now you're talking about a point that is still debated by politicians trying to get elected (Lower taxes but less government funded crap Vs. More government funded crap but higher taxes), and there is really no answer to that. I, personally, would rather have lower taxes and more freedom to do what I want, rather than pay higher taxes but have the government tell me what health care I get. But there are people who feel differently and that's what the argument is about.
That's not your choice at this point.

The choice is:

Increase revenue to Balance the deficit

or

Country collapses.

I like how you THINK the choice is between lower taxes and lower spending, I think it's cute and quaint that a country with a TRILLION dollar deficit on this budget year -alone- thinks that it has these options. It's quaint.

It's like when little children believe in santa claus, and other such cute imaginary fictions.

Laxman9292 said:
And that is why you're a naive optimist.
Your economy is utter shit, and thinking 'not helping working people keep healthy enough to keep what little is left in the economy' is actually valid in the modern world is as quaint as thinking that lowering taxes is going to prevent your country from economic self-destruction.

How's that tooth fairy working out for ya?
How about keeping more money in circulation by having low taxes so that more people can stimulate the economy.
And it isn't just our economy buddy, it's global. Ya know, the European sovereign debt crisis? How's Greece's economy doing again?
So, your answer to the accusation about how massive debt will collapse your economy is to point to countries with massive debt and say 'Hey look, it's collapsing their economies!' No shit. Btw, isn't Greece's per capita debt less than the US?

The maintenance of the basic structures your country requires to continue requires more money than the government receives in order to pay for such things.

What is the plan to deal with -that- problem? At some point you're going to have to quit whining, suck it up, and pay the taxman, if you want your country to survive, rather than decay.

Or, you can ignore the debt situation entirely (which every budget has done for the past however long it has, and is planned to do for the next five years) in the name of stimulating the economy. How well has -that- worked for ya?

The truth is, the economy is stimulated when money is spent. By raising taxes and inceasing spending on infrastructure, service, etc... you are taking that money and pumping it back into the economy. When a road is repaired, money is going back into the economy. When a service is rendered and paid for money is going back into the economy. This idea that tax money stifles the economy is preposterous, the government is spending that money, and therefore, money is being spent, and therefore, the economy is being stimulated.

The only part of government expendatures that isn't stimulating the economy are debt-maintenance. And when you're running a deficit, all you're doing is increasing the portion of government expenditures that are not going back into the economy.

Which makes zero sense.