That's why states offer welfare, which provide the jobless and the poor with retardedly good healthcare.Launcelot111 said:
What is Obamacare?
- Thread starter PureChaos
- Start date
I would say from what I have seen and know, hospitals are run just like a private business.Bertylicious said:
Heck, there are two big hospitals in my city, one at the center and one on the outskirts.
You see there was a group of doctors that didn't like how things were going for them in the one hospital, so they broke away with their own bit of funding and started their own hospital on the edge of the city.
Also in the last few years, the main hospital which was just named after the city, changed its name to the name of the local university and added "of said city" at the end of the name. So I would say it is now owned by the university, and it is a well known fact that universities in the US run like businesses instead of schools.
So in the case of my city, I don't think the workers of either hospital work for the state.
Really, as well, all you have to do is watch the TV show Scrubs. Sacred Heart plays out to be a privately owned/funded hospital that has a board of directors that watch over and manage the hospital to make sure it is making money, and if it isn't making enough, people get fired.
Considering from the accounts I hear from people I know that work at the main hospital in my city, that is how it works.
I know this is all anecdotal, but whatever, it's all I got.
I thought that was only if you had a large income.Sober Thal said:
If you were below a margin, you don't get fined, something-something.
So you don't believe that people should be entitled to a basic standard of health, no matter their circumstances? People should be allowed to suffer with serious injuries and illnesses simply because they're poor?Sonic Doctor said:
I've really never been able to fathom how people can be against something like this unless they were both quite selfish and thought they were going to lose out monetarily.
Nope if you do not have health insurance, under the new law, you will be assessed with a tax penalty. Of course this tax penalty is practically unenforceable as the Supreme Court ruled that they can't enforce it through liens and seizures nor can they hold you criminally liable for non payment. So it's more or less a tax based around the honor system as you are legally required to pay it but there's no repercussions if you don't.minimacker said:
Actually, only the people that CAN afford healthcare but don't get it that are taxed. People who can't afford health care aren't taxed, and I think I heard that the money gained from the penalties will be pushed towards giving coverage to people who can't afford health care, though I'm not sure about that last part.Sober Thal said:
Exactly what wikipedia says about this:
A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate, requires that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
I believe you can get subsidies based on your income for the cost of coverage (which, as far as I know, it STILL a lot lower than private healthcare). Also, the way I understood it, the "fine" as most people refer to it only applies if you don't have private health insurance AND you are wanting to opt out of national healthcare.Sober Thal said:
Evilpigeon said:
Did you even read his comment? He said he doesn't want charity, this is a common mentality of many people -- myself included. Some people don't want given to them what they didn't earn, and simply being born in a geographical location of the world is not earning.
It's not government's job to baby sit us; to nurture us when we're sick, plan our retirement, feed us when we're hungry. The more we expect from government, the more power we give to them, the less we have.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Brock+Lesnar+Health+Care+CanadaKordie said:
No Canada is horribly under equipped too. When the CITY of Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than the entire country of Canada you really can't say that Canada is sufficiently equipped. Canada is a perfect example of how socialized medicine ultimately turns into everybody waiting a long time for healthcare that ends up being mediocre at best and horribly deficient at worst.Kordie said:
Basically a rich athlete gets sick and is shocked to find he can get better care by paying more at a private hospital? I find that as a point for Canada, where we will treat every the same regardless of income. Health care isn't about screwing over the poor to help the wealthy/famous. It's about making sure everyone gets cared for.mindlesspuppet said:
Yes, I did read his comment. It's not charity and the whole point of a government is to babysit you.mindlesspuppet said:
Government exists to enforce rules and standards, in other words to turn an anarchy into a society. To do this it actually has to look after the people in its society (what do you think laws are for, do you count them as charity as well? How about roads, state funded schooling, public sector jobs etc...).
In a functional society people have basic rights and priviledges, I'd say that the right to be generally healthy is fairly central to the whole concept of a functioning society. You're entitled to your own opinion on the matter of course, I'd just call it extremely callous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obamaXanthious said:
Have a read, plenty of national health care systems are perfectly comparable to the current system in the US. Sourced from the world health organisation and everything.
Right! Gotcha.Kordie said:
OT: So does Obamacare mean that when 'Merkins fall over and feel pain in their chests they'll go to the doctor rather than not wanting to get a bill for "just a broken rib" or would they still be charged?
Of course, but that's not an argument. The top-tier level of healthcare is roughly the same around the world... if you can afford it.mindlesspuppet said:
I traveled to New Delhi last year for several months. If you can afford it, Indian medical centers are pretty close to what's available in every other developed nation. However, their most common tier of care was usually two or three men in a "clean" office that handed out prescriptions with one diagnostic test if you were lucky. If you were poor (which 46% of India is), then you visited some guy in a closet who handed out drugs based on symptoms.
You can't judge medical care by the "best," but rather by what's widely available.
So, sure, American medical care is top-notch if you can afford it, but so is UK, Canadian, Russian, German, French, Italian, Swedish, etc. etc. etc.
Other than that, the United States is 37th in terms of what the average person has access to.
You still pay a deductible. I think my emergency room (A&E) deductible is $100, and my hospital stay deductible is $500 a night. So for someone like my brother, who has epilepsy, those $100 can add up, plus added deductibles for ambulance services.Bertylicious said:
Because forcing everyone into the private system (That the health insurance companies will invariably make a profit on) is already seen as 'Godless Communism' (There is legit criticism but most of its death panel and other rightist lies) so the political climate in the US just isn't ready for it.TwiZtah said:
I personally would love the Swedish system applied here in the States.
(Also I hear alot of complaints that the US has superior medicinal science to the rest of the world. This is because the US is an industrial juggernaut not some inherent benefit of private healthcare. We simply have more money for research and what good is it if noone can afford it?)
Captcha Know your rights - Fitting the opponents some times seem to be promoting the right to die if you don't have enough money.