The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

  Ok, increased taxes aside on this one.

Supporters : How do you view how it will work? 

For the people that think its a good idea.  Have you checked & listened to the complaints that go on in Canada / England.

Opponents:  Besides taxes, why do you not like it.

For myself.  If the Gov is going to start paying for peoples health care, then those people need to take an interest in their own health.  Start exercising, stop smoking, stop eating fast food, get down to a healthy weight are a few things that need to be done.  If you are going to take money from the Gov. then they have the right to tell you how to live, what to eat, what to weigh & how much you need to exercise.

Also, I do not believe it will be a open check book.  I think you will have to go through a Gov official to determine if you can have a surgery & if you are cost effective.  Meaning is your remaining life expectation going to get them a return on them paying for your surgery.

You are a scary, scary person... If you ever decide to run for public office, please let me know, so I can do my best impersonation of Christopher Walken in "The Dead Zone."

The day the government tells me what to eat, how much to weigh and how much to exercise is the day I tell the government to take a flying fuck at a rolling red white and blue doughnut.

  So in a nut shell.  You would want to basically live your life the way you wish, eat whatever you want, be as lazy as you want & be as fat & out of shape as you want, However,  expect someone else to pay for your piss poor decisions when you have to go to the hospital, while contributing nothing yourself?  Is that correct?

In case your not aware.  The health care industry is already starting to tell people if you are not at this BMI, with this cholesterol level, this blood pressure then you are paying more of a deductible.  So its either get in shape or pay up if you need to go to the doctor & since these people will not be paying, what other choice is there?

From United Health Cares Web Site:

This is just the start.  The days of a free ride on health care are slowly ending.  So while you might think I'm a scary scary person I'm only going off what the industry is already doing.

Am I as scary now?   Its great that I scare you.  The people who are actually making these decisions are much much worse.  They are actually doing it.

Now, outside of attacking me.  How do you envision it to work.  Just like it is now, but the Gov is picking up the tab?  Have you checked out the Canadian system & the problems they are having.  The wait times?  You are dealing with the Gov.  they are not in a rush to save your life.  As you might be.

Pleae be sure to get that on video.

What percentage of medical bills are due to "self-inflicted" illnesses such as obesity, smoking/drinking/drug related problems, etc?  I've heard as much as 50% but that sounds awfully high.

I can see government trying to recoup costs by raising taxes on unhealthy foods, cigarettes, acohol, etc.  I can even imagine being taxed on how much TV you watch. 

It's not much different than helmet laws.  Are they really for our safety or to decrease the chances of us becoming expensive wards of the state after suffering brain damage in an accident?

No offense, but WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN?  ;)

How is this any different than us funding some of the people on welfare and other forms of public assistance?  Automakers?  Mortgage bailouts?  Illegal aliens? 

The only solution is for enough of us to get on the dole that the system is no longer sustainable.

To me it sounds low.  My guess would have been 75% but I'd say its truly unknown how many problems are not assigned to life style.

Just as they are wanting to raise prices on natural gas usage, gas usage & all energy usage.  You know the lower / middle class do not use these products.  

Can you imagine how he will feel when they tell him he cannot have that surgery unless he is willing to pay for it himself ( Which is something we will be able to do )

Does everyone think the Gov will view a life saving surgery the same for a 42 Yr old as they would an 75 Yr. old?

Fair point.

Its not.

I'm afraid we all will end up on it & then it will.

If Uncle Sam is going to provide insurance for everyone, I don't think it would make much sense to charge people extra or withhold certain treatments if the illnesses are self-inflicted. The poor have the worst rates of obesity and diabetes. It wouldn't be possible to tax them more.

I think it might make sense to raise taxes on unhealthy foods, but I'm not sure how that could be implemented. Americans' biggest problem is large portions and even "healthy" foods are bad if you eat too much. A steep tax on all restaurant service would probably be effective, but given the importance of the service economy that would never happen.

Please cite your sources for the "horrible wait times" in the Canadian or British systems.  I would like to see how they compare to the wait times that we have in America right now.

On a side note, have you seen the movie Sicko?  That you disagree with the premises stated and the examples given in that movie is without question; I would just like to know why you disagree with it (if you've seen it).

The major objection that I have to the movie is that Moore completely downplays the tax cost of the healthcare programs in Canada, Britain, France, etc.  However, given that this particular discussion specifically excludes tax costs, it would seem that that movie would be a pretty good example of all the reasons why nationalized healthcare works.

One of the points of Britain's nationalized healthcare system that I found particularly attractive: doctors there get paid (by the gov't) based on performance.  If you get your patients to quit smoking, or reduce their blood pressure, or lower their cholesterol levels, you get bonuses based on this.  I find this system to be preferable to the current system of insurance companies attempting to deny you care at every possible opportunity that they can (the less claims that they pay out, the more profit that they make).

From a fiscal responsibility standpoint, sure, it's better to play "guilty until proven innocent" when it comes to paying for healthcare services.  But from the standpoint of the people actually receiving care, "innocent until proven guilty" works a lot better.  And healthcare is one area where I don't mind letting some abuses get through the cracks if it means that everyone who needs care gets access to it.

I suggest that everyone watch "Sicko" whether or not you agree with Michael Moore's political views before you form an opinion on this either way.

Just Google

 " Canadian health care system wait time " I think you will find something there.

I have not seen it, so I'm not able to comment.

  I'm all for getting people healthy, by whatever means.  My greatest concern is from what I've been hearing/reading is that you have to get approval from the Gov. to get you radiation treatments & people have died while waiting for the Gov to let them know.

BTW Thank you.

Why?  We all know Moore will put his spin on it to make it sound all wonderful & Spider Dan has already pointed out Moore ignored the tax cost.

I would think research outside of "Sicko " would be the better choice.

Is there ANYTHING that did not because bloated, inefficient and significantly more expensive when the government took over?

I can understand that we need a better system but I can't understand looking to the government for that. 

If you just want a different system regardless of effectiveness and cost then the government is the way to go.

I also tend to think that health insurance a big part of the problem.  If more people paid cash for non-emergency services then perhaps more people could afford basic healthcare.  Those with insurance often have no idea how much they're being charged.  One allergy specialist I know of charges $312 just to have his assistant administer an injection (a simple shot).  That's not including the cost of the medicine which is billed separately by the pharmacy.  The shot takes less than 5 minutes and there's zero contact with the doctor - it's all done by his assistant.  If you happen to consult with the doctor for another 5 minutes it's $151 more.   With the shot that works out to over $2500 per hour.

Because your "My opinion is far more superior because I have looked at EVERY angle and obviously did not make a snap judgment" is working out real well.  ::)

Arguing with you is like running a race in the special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded.

The theory behind socialized medicine is that you have better bargaining power in large numbers, and having government pay for it takes the pressure off of business to pay for it.

Some of the stuff I'm reading here is scare-mongering, like saying that the government will tell you what you're allowed to eat, but there are some legitimate concerns with overuse of medicine.  Perhaps, using it like insurance, where it's free (or practically free) at first, but the more and more you use it, the more you're liable for.  There are solutions.

This article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118394504633260585.html) shows some of the differences between the two systems. It does mention that complaints about long wait times are significantly more frequent in Canada than in the United States.

As for me, my mind tilts towards socialized medical care because letting all people have access (however slow or inefficient) to necessary health care is better than barring some from said access purely on the basis of random economic status. There's something about a poor person having to drink lemon juice to get rid of a kidney stone (rather than getting surgery, because he doesn't have the money or insurance) that seems awful to me. (See this video, at :55-:58, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVjLdBwTVjM)

However, I also agree that a federal government is not the best option for providing universal "free" (i.e. insurance has been paid) access to health care. Instead, I think, some sort of gigantic, dedicated, international, charitable organization which runs completely off of voluntary charitable donations (and the proper investment thereof) should do this kind of work. Perhaps a large church (or group of churches) could pull this off, if such an organization agreed not to discriminate who they treated based on religion. That, I think, would be optimal.

I also pointed out that since cost has been eliminated as a factor for this discussion, Moore's proposal becomes extremely attractive.

As I see it, the primary objection to make is cost.  If you are asking, "other than the cost, what don't you like about a single-payer healthcare system?", the answer is, I don't really dislike it at all.

I would strongly suggest that you take the opportunity to watch the movie, even if only to see the points that you are trying to refute.

In a system where people who volunteered with the rescue efforts after 9/11 come down with serious respiratory problems, and are denied medical coverage because they were not official gov't employees, something is terribly wrong.

P.S. I think that it should be noted that (in the U.S.) we are not talking about socialized health care, where doctors and other medical professionals are all government employees.  We are talking about a single-payer system, where doctors still maintain their own private practices, but the multitude of insurance companies are replaced by a single government "insurance company."  There is a significant difference between the two.

Don't forger that one of the biggest drivers in HC is malpractice insurance.  Pharmaceuticals are the largest cost.

Its not my fault you think the best form of education is to watch a Micheal Moore film.   ::)  Cause we all know Moore has no agenda going on.

  The way you take me giving my opinion is something I cannot control.  My superior opinion is pretty sure most here believe their opinion has some validity.   I started this thread with the intent of trying to educate myself on how others thought the system would/should/wouldn't work & is why I took the tax cost out of it, since I felt that would be the way it would head.    I gave mine & get attacked.  Never said while giving mine that I hitting the nail right on the head.  I ask question like this to allow me to see a different side.  It was simply how I think it should work.  Take some F-in interest in your own health & if you will not then either the Gov should force you to or not cover your cost.

However, some of you cannot express your opinion ( Heck you haven't even given it) on it but would rather insult the person asking for their opinion.   



  Do you feel better, now that you got to throw out an insult?  Hope you slept good knowing what great impact you had.  ::)

Its not bargaining power that is lacking.  Its the Gov being in bed with Pharm. companies that is the driving cost.  Drugs from other countries cannot cross our borders.( Legally )

  Not saying the Gov will.  I'm saying IMO the Gov. should.  BTW have you ever known the Gov to not want a say in things when they are supporting it?

Same as they are doing with bailouts.  You take money from them then they have a right to get envolved in your life or business.

I do not invest in a business without getting a say.  Do you?

That is what I was looking for.  Just some thoughts.

I tried to watch the 9/11 thing he did & I had to roll my eyes at all the facts he left out.  I'm not sure I could stomach anything else from him.  Don't really think I could watch anything from a man who believes our Gov was in bed with what went down that day.  I would not be able to view it with an open mind because I know how is spins thing to make them sound different than they truly are.


That is the Gov. some are wanting to run this plan.  If they had wanted to take care of these people then they would have.  They are the Gov. they pretty much can do anything they choose & they chose to allow these people to help & then turned their back on them because of the cost of covering them.  Do you believe it would be different under their rule & that cost of a care verus return on getting you back to health will not be something they consider?



What about Obama's plan that just came out where they get to determine that doctors are treating you with only Gov. approved & cost effective care?

I'm not suggesting the Gov should be able to tell doctors how to treat you.  I'm just wondering if you go & get told you have cancer that people will have to wait several months while the Gov paper work gets pushed around before they can start their treatment.  Is that not something of a consideration to some?  We all know Gov paper work moves slowly.

Anyone that has faith in any government program when it comes to their health,just go apply for food stamps sometime.When you see all the b.s. red tape that one has to endure because a small percentage of the population chooses to cheat the system,when people that actually need a little help can't get it,then just imagine that instead of some help with your grocery bill you need a life saving operation.....

you can't compare universal health care and food stamps simply because they don't equate .. only a select number of people are elegable for food stamps .. with universal health care there is no limitation about who is elegable for it .. so the red tape is meaningless.

The problem with socialized or universal or nationalized healthcare is really that everyone is thinking in half-steps .. whereas if you take the british or canadian approach and say that everyone is entitled to health care as a basic right. and approach the problem from that perspective, then you have a starting point.

take control of the nations health-care away from the politicians and put it in the hands of the doctors. make it so a doctor determines the best coarse of action .. not with an emphasis on profits .. but with an emphasis on making people healthy .. reward doctors that have healthier patients, reward doctors that see the least healthy people and make them healthy. . pay for performance is a concept i'm sure all republicans are fond of.

if that means nationalizing every single hospital in the country, putting every doctor on the government payroll, and abolishing any sort of patent protection for drugs to be used in-country then so be it .. If that's the system that works .. then why don't we as a people clamor for it ?

and if that impacts the tax rates everyone pays .. lets say by 5 or 10% universally .. then so be it .. i would pay 5% more in income tax if the end result is that no matter what happens to me and what condition i may have, i would have healthcare free of cost.

why should insurance companies dictate care .. they're in it for profits as well .. the problem with our current health system is that too many parties with profits in mind are involved.. HMOs, hospitals, health care conglomerates, pharmaceutical companies, .. do you think we're unable as civilization to cure the common cold ? .. i think we are .. i think there's no motivation to do this as long as people keep buying nyquil.. it's more profitable to treat symptoms chronically than it is to cure a disease .. that's what a profit based healthcare system has gotten us.

Maybe not in a 1 to 1 but it will give you some idea as to how Gov run programs work.

Its that approach I was looking at.

Contradict yourself.  You say take it out of the hands of the politicians & put in the hands of the doctors, then go on to say even if that means putting all doctors on Gov. payroll, which puts it right back into the hands of politicans.

Think of it this way.  Trainers/doctors in the NFL are paid by each team.  They are suppose to make the best decision based on the players health.  However, you have the team then able to tell them if they want to remain the team doctor to get the player back out on the field.

Also, if you force doctors onto a payroll so they cannot earn their investment that they paid for schooling.  Do you believe we would still have people wanting to invest their time & energy to becoming doctors?

Just curious.   Lets say you hurt your knee & your doctor wants you to get a MRI.  Do you think he will be able to schedule it right then ( as it is now ) or wait for the Gov. to tell you that a MRI is allowed.   Then if the MRI deterimines you have a torn menicus & you need surgery will you be able to schedule that right then ( as it is now ) or will you have to wait yet again for the approval for the surgery.

Profit based healthcare system got us where we are, but the price is so high because our politicans screwed us over by taking payoffs.

The best health care in the world is to first take care of yourself.

I understand your point; I also felt Fahrenheit 9/11 was a bit ridiculous.  Similarly, in Sicko, there is a section where Moore takes the aforemention 9/11 volunteers to Cuba to get medical care (which they do), which I think is a little over the top.

But you should really watch the movie, if only to get a better idea of how the Canadian/British/French systems actually work.

As Fau said, there's a major difference when you move to a single-payer system where everyone is covered.  That immediately bypasses all the "you're not eligible for coverage because you spent less than 100 hours volunteering at ground zero"-type garbage.  The question is simply this:  Are you a U.S. citizen?  If so, then you're covered.

There are no more arguments about pre-existing conditions and coverage caps.  You will not see families going bankrupt because a family member has cancer, or families having to choose whether to put their kids through college or pay for a hip replacement.

This is a thoroughly disproved and discredited right-wing smear.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/185643


See, here's the thing:  one of the primary reasons for the relative quickness of the current system is that you don't have to wait for final, confirmed approval from your insurance company before you get treatment.  You get your treatment, the doctor sends the ins.co. a bill.

The downside of this system is when the ins.co. starts finding reasons not to pay, and you find out (after the fact) that you are on the hook for a bill for tens of thousands of dollars.  I would submit, then, that if you prefer this type of system (where you get "speedy service" but are potentially left on the hook for large amounts of money because the ins.co. decided to kick you to the curb), why not just go to your preferred doctor and pay cash up front, avoiding the gov't entirely?  This will certainly be an option in any U.S. healthcare system.

Furthermore, when we talk about how quickly Americans get medical service, I am always reminded of when my niece had a severe asthma attack, and we were told that we couldn't go to the local emergency room because she wasn't actually unconscious.  We had to drive 30 more miles to an in-network hospital.

You can make the argument that maybe the wait at my local hospital (under a gov't healthcare system) would have been longer than the drive.  My response is, if my niece's condition worsened, I'd rather be waiting at a hospital (specifically: a hospital where they don't have to worry about if we are "covered") than stuck on the highway.

First of all, your opinion is no more superior than anyone else's.  Second, If your so "educated," I merely pointed out an alternate opinion. It isn't my fault that you're far too superior to respect Mr. Moore's.  And for the record, nowhere did I say it was the only research I had ever done on the subject.




I slept well, thank you for asking.

Thanks for telling that.  I thought that is what I basically posted & you quoted.

His opinion is no more valid than any of ours.  He is nothing but Propaganda.

I have no respect for Moore, nor should I.

This is the problem that I have. Even with insurance, they still give you the run around, don't want to pay, and have you kicked out of the hospital early. This is exactly what happened to me. I was supposed to stay in for a week, but was booted out after a couple of days and sent home trying to figure out how to give myself the injections I needed in my stomach. To make matters worse, when I go to pick up the prescription, I was told that my insurance wasn't going to cover it. It was $295 for 5 days worth. I needed 10 days. Fortunately, my mom's attorney friend got it all straightened out. However, the insurance company tried to stick me with a $22,000 bill. It's 6 months later and we fifnally have come to some sort of agreement. I'm still paying though the nose, though.

I think we need universal healthcare. Healthcare is not a privilege. It is a right. Period. No one should die or be turned away from healthcare because they don't have enough money.  Families shouldn't have to go bankrupt to get cancer treatment for their kids.

Hear, hear!

Who is your insurance carrier?

  Sorry, but cannot agree that HC is a right.   It may be a necessity but not a right.  I do agree with the rest of the above quote, but does that mean universal health care is the answer?

However, the point of this thread is to kick around some ideas on how each of us think it will / should work.

Aetna

I do think that universal healthcare is the answer. If you don't feel comfortable with it, opt out and pay your bills out of your own pocket. Everything that you say in these issues seems to come more from the point of view that you want to make sure no one gets one red cent from you that doesn't "deserve" it. Everything's not that easy.

Will there be people that abuse the system? Of course. Will it also help many hard working people that become sick keep from filing for bankruptcy or deciding between a house payment and an operation? I hope so.

With that said, I don't know what the exact answer is. That's why I elect the people that are smarter than me and that I think can get the job done.

The only real world opinion that i can get is from my wife's bosses who are all from Edmonton,Alberta and they tell me that the system up there stinks.That it takes forever to get an appointment and then when you do the care is sub-standard.

Let's begin with malpractice insurance.  It's over $100,000 for family doctors/general practitioners, and other than refer you to a specialist, or not refer you, they really don't perform any high risk procedures.

$100,000 is about $50 an hour.

Could tort-reform be a round about way of bringing down the cost of healthcare?

For what it's worth, while you will have people complaining about anything the government runs, I believe the number of Canadians that, when asked, would prefer to replace their system (with something like, say, ours) is in the single-digit percentage.

This link implies 9%:
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/sweenyreport/2008/07/01/91-percent-of-canadians-like-their-health-care-system/

This older link implies 13%:
http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInCanada.html

I would guess that anyone would be cool with free healthcare as long as it is competent, thorough and readily available.  It's those who have suffer while waiting who probably object.   

The US system is somewhat flexible in that you can petition your insurance to cover a procedure or ask for donations from the general public.  Is the Canadian system flexible?  I've heard that it's regardless of money/ability to pay.  If you have 3 months to live and your life saving operation is scheduled 6 months out .... too bad. 

What percentage of American's are dissatisfied with their own health insurance?  For us, the availability isn't an issue, it's affordability.  Either you have good insurance or you don't.

From the second link:
Who wouldn't pay just over 1% for our current system?  That's were our inefficient government comes into play.  They could never do it for that amount. 

If we're paying 5-10% and experiencing the same problems that 9-13% of Canadians do then is it a better deal?

Why do you feel its the answer?  Might not have that option.

Is America the land of opportunity or entitlement?  It has nothing to do with someone getting something from me that does not deserve it.  It has everything to do about being free & living off your effort & not off the hand of Gov. & not asking them to pay when you need something.  Some of you laugh when I make statements that the Gov could start laying down the law on your health if they are now supporting your poor health.  All I can say is where have your been if you believe the Gov will not want a say in your life.

Also, this thread was suppose to be about how each of us thought it would work.  Not diss the person asking how you think it will

Of course they will be abuse.  The Gov is running it.  They are simply to incompetent to watch for such abuse.

I'm just trying to figure out how some here think its going to be an open checkbook & not have to apply to a bureaucrat  to get approval for a procedure.


  Wouldn't you like more than just two choices?

  If I ever catch it on I'll try to sit down & watch it, but again.  No way will I be able to view it unbiased.  I know what Moore is about so him telling how their system works will not hit home since I already know he is not interested in accuracy & truth.
He lost any credibility with me on Fahrenheit 9/11.

Just a quick google search on "Sicko" Criticism provided me this.  I've not seen or ever heard of the documentary " Dead Meat " either.  Have you?


I do not believe it will be a question of being covered, but how long will they draw it out before you get it.


My concern is can it lead to that.

  In life threatening situation.  I would rather have speedy service.  Emergency rooms will care for you with or without insurance.  So I'm not concerned with that as much.

When does a neccesity become a right in your book? Also you have not thrown out many ideas on your own there sparky, you have pretty much torn apart other peoples idea's without presenting any true solutions of your own besides your "not with my tax money" mantra.
Also since you talk about self destructive behavior I am sure you are all for the end of the tobacco, alcohol, fast food, snack food industries as they all cause more harm than they contribute to the general good of our country.

Dphins, all we've heard is your incessant whining about universal health care. What would you like to see done?

When it is written in the bill of rights..

Majority of Americans feel owning a car is a necessity.  Does that make it a right?
Majority of Americans feel owning a TV is a necessity.   Does that make it a right?

HC is a problem in this country for these reasons.  We do not take care of ourselves.  We want to eat food that is void of nutrition & loaded with sodium & sugar. We do not want to exercise.  Our food is loaded with chemicals.  Our water is loaded with chemicals.  We want a pill to solve our problems.

That is why HC is an issue.

Did you not read the original post of this thread.  I gave my opinion on how it could /should work
I've not torn anyone's opinion apart on this.   I've ask them have they considered this or that or this is my fear with that.  You guys want to focus on me rather than discuss something as adults.

Its the abuse of these items that cause the problems.  

Smoking one cigarette a day will not harm you. Smoking two packs a day will greatly increase your odds that they will.

 Having one snack cake today will not harm you.  Having 20 a week will greatly increase your odds that they will.

Drinking one beer today will not harm you.  Drinking a 60 a week will greatly increase your odds that they will.

Too much water at one time can kill you.  So again its the abuse or lack of self control that harm us.

Can you not have an adult conversation without insults?  I take everyone abuse here without returning, because I'm trying to have a discussion. 

What I want first is for people simply to start taking some interest in their own health. Stop asking the doctor to do something for you & do it yourself.  Stop eathing the crap on a daily basis that forces them to run to the doctor to get a pill.

You get more people taking an interest in their own health & it will lower the need for HC & cost will come down.  HC is simply supply & demand.  As with everything else.  Lower the demand & prices will come down.

 Pharm is the driving cost of HC.  Pills do not make you healthy.

And for those that do take care of themselves and still need pills to stay healthy. What would you like them to do?

Fair enough.  You should still watch it, though.

With regard to Dead Meat: just as you can find people who have fallen through the cracks in the Canadian system, you can find people who have fallen through the cracks in the American system (some of them are in Sicko).  The difference is that in Canada, 100% of citizens are covered and ~90% of them are satisfied with their services.  In America, nearly 20% don't have healthcare insurance to begin with.  Even if 100% of covered Americans were satisfied with their services, we'd still be lagging behind.

I'll take the possibility of future problems over the reality of current problems.

If I go to an emergency room (with healthcare insurance) and my ins.co. tells me to leave, I am personally on the hook for any bills I incur.  So what's the point of having healthcare insurance if, when I really need it, I'm going to have to pay out of pocket anyway?

Dphins4me, I suggest you stay on topic.

The topic is not "how can Americans improve their daily health habits."  It would be great if we lived in a society where people didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't eat unhealthy foods, and exercised regularly.  (And for the record, the U.S. rates better than most of the gov't healthcare countries in % of smokers and drinkers.)  But unless you are suggesting some sort of law to require this (or some sort of other direct incentive), then it's a pipe dream.  The option to "live healthier" has existed for a long time, and it (meaning, the availability of the option) is clearly not a substitute for healthcare insurance.

have you ever read the constitution?

how about the bill of rights ?

because this is one of the amendments in the bill of rights:

see .. what that means is that rights are rights .. if the people of this country deem them to be rights .. that's all it takes ..

we could all say that we have a right to government funded ice cream sundays for everyone .. and if the "people" read "congress" makes that a law .. then it is constitutional  and is a RIGHT

so maybe while you're looking for what rights are written in the bill of rights .. you should maybe read it first

I see the point you're making, and I think our disagreement just comes in a fundamental idea of what government's function is. 

For example, we have a military, and I don't expect to help pick out the fighter jets we use.  They take my money and have people in place to make those decisions.  The same with NASA, building contracts, education, etc.  I'm not always happy with how the money is spent, but I take the good with the bad, in that I think that having the government take over huge projects like that is the best solution, and I vote for people who I think would spend the money more wisely.  I feel that health care is another one of those things.  I think that the country is better off as a whole if everyone is taken care of and we pool our resources as a nation to negotiate good deals, implement standardized technology, etc.  I'm totally fine with that money being chosen and decided by someone who isn't me.

Let me make a suggestion.  To try and understand where I'm coming from, ask yourself this:

As you stated before, you're okay with roads and bridges being built by government, instead of the private sector.  That isn't in the bill of rights, yet we can all kind of agree that they're necessary.  Why are you okay with being taxed for this purpose, and these business decisions (how to spend the money) being made by an elected official, yet the idea of the same system for health care being totally preposterous?

I just need to toss this out here - private carriers are doing this now.  They also cap procedures at what "they" feel is the appropriate cost.  Person "x" has an approved an appendectomy.  The procedure runs into a couple minor bumps in the road that causes additional anesthesia, blood work and a slightly longer stay in the hospital than what is on a grid sitting in someone's office for the appendectomy.

If the carrier stated that the surgery shouldn't exceed $10,000 - that is all they will pay.  Period, end of story, no rights to appeal within the carrier.  They are very rigid on these "guidelines."  So even though that additional anesthesia, blood work and a slightly longer stay in the hospital was needed to save a person's life...if it added $15,000 grand on to the total guess who flips the bill?

The poor sap that needed the surgery in the first place, based on a chart sitting on some processor's desk.

I don't know how the private section, health care wise, could be in worse condition than it is now. 
 
Wait times?  Head off to your local ER right now and see how long you sit.  I had to do one of my clinicals in the ER in one of Portland's hospitals.  Portland isn't exactly a massive city, I think last count there was a metro population of about 70,000 with a rough service area that covered about 140,000.  The wait times in that ER were brutal.  I would watch a young couple come in with a 6 month old with a 105 degree fever.  They would be triage in maybe two hours and actually seen by a doctor after four - five (and several screaming matches later).

The wait times in our country aren't anything to sneeze at.

I don't think the "waiting times" argument is relevant.  That speaks to the efficiency of the system in place, not who's paying for it.

Government doesn't have the best track record for efficiency, granted, but it doesn't mean that we can't seek higher standards.

Where are you pulling these percentages?  I know any plan will never hit 100%.  Not expecting that BTW.

Even if the future problem could be far worse? 

  If you are in the emergency room, then why would the Ins. Co be telling you to leave? I've never spoke with my Ins Co while in the ER.    Expand on that please.

I agree & was going stop it if the discussion went further down that road.

I'm all for people being allowed to smoke, drink & eat really bad food on a daily basis if that is their choice. They know what they are doing to their bodies.  Its fast easy food.  Its easier to sit on a coach than walk on a treadmill.    However, don't come crying about it when those decisions you make land you in very bad health & in need of HC.

Every last word of it?  Years ago.

Yes.

With all that.   Is HC in the BoR?  When they amend the BoR then you have something.  Until then.  Its not a right.

So, what if we have a base insurance for everyone, so that it's harder to abuse the system.  So, you still have to pay for the first parts of treatment.  It keeps people from going to the ER for a blister (they still have to pay for the deductible), but you don't have people with brain cancer getting bankrupted or refused insurance.

Perhaps you could still have some insurance in the private sector to fill in those gaps above and beyond, so we're providing a base level of coverage to everyone, but those seeking more can get it.

..and let's say that there are mandatory checkups every however often that you have to do to remain on the plan (just like you would with a car or whatever else).  That way, prevention is higher.

These are just some ideas.

Right now, these costs are on the backs of business and it's tough.  When I started my business, one of our goals was REAL health insurance for ourselves.  It's costly.  I'd gladly pay a higher personal tax rate to get that burden off of the business.

I personally have health insurance .. and supplemental insurance (aflac)

between the two .. i pay next to nothing for any sort of hospital stay / procedure / dentist

i just have to file paperwork with aflac and they send me money .. in exchange, i pay extra every month for this type of coverage .. but for all intents and purposes i have free healthcare .. If instead of me paying two private companies to provide this service, i pay the extra 150 a month in taxes then i'm fine with it

Every citizen in Canada is covered.  That's 100%.

As far as the U.S. goes:


http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

I don't think it could be.

I think we can all agree that there is no way that a system like Canada's (where you are legally not permitted to purchase private healthcare insurance) will not get passed in the U.S.  There's just no way it will fly.  So there will always be a failsafe option of purchasing private insurance, or, in the absolute worst case, paying outright for your own services (exactly like we do today).  Therefore, the "worst case" scenario is really the same system what we have today, but with higher taxes.

Given that, I think it is more than worthwhile to ensure healthcare access to every citizen.  If the unlikely worst case scenario is that it's just as bad as it right now (but with higher taxes), I'll happily accept that deal.

This is far from uncommon.  If you are insured with, say, Kaiser Permanente, you can only visit a non-Kaiser ER for what is determined to be a "serious emergency."  As noted, my niece's asthma attack did not qualify as such.  For any "less serious" emergency, you will be directed to leave the ER and go to a Kaiser hospital.  This happens after you give them (the ER) your insurance information and they contact your insurer.

The alternative is to commit fraud and say that you are not insured, which may or may not result in you receiving a bill anyway.

Dphins, you still have not told us what you would like to see. Telling people to change their lifestyle is not solving the problem. What do you think the solution is here?

They should still get healthcare but with some incentive to start caring for themselves.  Perhaps they should pay a deductible/copay or  something.

It's difficult for me to have a lot of sympathy for someone who needs healthcare but can't afford it because they're CHOOSING to afford to McDonald's every meal and a case of beer every night. 

It's the same feeling you get on the rare occasion you see someone drive a status symbol car (BMW, Cadillac, Mercedes, etc) to the grocery store and pay with food stamps.  How many of us could afford a nice "ride" if someone else was paying our grocery bill?

Uhm...I care for myself. However, my blood clots in my veins. It's a genetic thing. I must monitor it and take blood thinners when/if my levels hit a certain point. I have to go to the doctor and have blood drawn. So...am I just supposed to "just take better care of myself"?

No one disputes that too many people who want/need to be covered aren't.  That being said, the 18% number is somewhat disputed due to the number of young people who think they're bullet-proof who have insurance available but choose not to have it.

I think that this number is at least balanced (I would actually say "greatly outweighed," but that's a guess) by people who are actually underinsured.  These are people who don't have enough coverage to handle anything but the most superficial of problems; were they to develop any sort of serious disease (e.g. cancer), their coverage would quickly run out.

One of the main benefits of a single-payer system is that in all but the most super-extreme cases, you don't have to worry about getting a call informing you that your coverage threshold has been exceeded and you're on your own.

Your idea does not address people with hereditary or genetic problems that can skip a generation and strike them down even though they do not engage in any of the unhealthy practices you and dlphin keep talking about. By the standards the two of you have set forth, if you at anytime had, ingested, consumed, etc anything bad, then you would be barred from state run medical coverage.

I think "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" could be used to show people have as much right to medical care as they do an education. How many billions of dollars are lost in productivity each year to illness because people cannot get care and work themselves into the ground, until they are too sick to function, and in the mean time infect their co workers? Perhaps the overall cost of the program could be offset by recovering some of this lost time.

Yes it does.  You ignored the obvious so you'd have something to bitch about.

Are we going to socialize the university system next?

Perhaps.

What do you call subsidized loans, Pell Grants, Board of Governor waivers?

   I basically have.  Take the majority of lifestyle problems out of HC & its all different ball games.  The more something is in demand the more it cost.  People want to role their eyes to the amount of crap they take into their bodies on a daily basis & I'm not talking just bad food.  Chemicals affect us & they are in everything & it does not take a lot to have an effect on our bodies.  You should see what they put in a Tenox ( Food preservative )  There is a reason green is popping up everywhere & its not just for the Earth.   People are starting to demand products that will not cause you ill effects.  I love that.

HMO also are not about saying money.  They are simply another hand in the pot.

Sorry, to hear about your problem.  For people like you who have a real need for medical care.  Its the life style people that are driving cost up & the fact Pharm Comp. are doing everything they can to get every American on some kind of drug.  Be it life style or they create a condition ( Restless leg syndrome - Please )

Get the life style people healthy & people who truly have a need will be able to use it at a reasonable price.

Pharm is the driving cost.  Reduce it & HC will come down to where people like you will have more affordable HC.  The people that truly need it.

I do not want the Gov involved in our health. Its just another step for them into our homes.

^^^

I don't understand your explanation.  Simplify it for me. 

What do you mean "take the majority of lifestyle problems out of health care"?  Who takes it out?  What are the problems you're describing?  It's all run by the private sector now.  How do you get that done?


I don't really understand what you're saying, but from what I gather, it would seem that government control would be an answer to at least some of those problems that the private sector has been unable to weed out itself. 

Dphins4me, are you unable to have any health-related discussion without habitually beating the "live healthier!" drum?

I mean, seriously... are you saying that to solve the national healthcare problems we are currently facing, instead of providing healthcare insurance to all citizens we should just pass out some pamphlets on the benefits of eating healthy?  This is like abstinence-only education, only a thousand times more useless.

You are not providing an actionable solution to the problems we are facing.  Please try to get back on topic.

   We now need roads & bridges to move products from one point to another throughout the country.  Allowing our economy to grow ( Not that it is currently ) 

If they were built by the private sector then every road would be a toll road, since the idea for a business is to make money.   I understand a Gov need to do this, plus if you didn't then there would be no interstates unless the states got together & planed it out.  As I've said prior.  Fed. Gov has a role.  Should be a very limited role in our daily lives.  Local & State should handle far more than what they do.

Individuals cannot go out & build roads.  They can go out & get HC.

Your "solution" still does nothing to make sure that those that are ill have adequate coverage and can pay their bills. I don't see how everyone else eating better and getting exercise does anything to alleviate my medical bills. You are not offering a plan or a solution. You're just saying people need to treat their bodies better and it will drive down the cost of health care.

I want universal health care to keep those that are sick from going to the poor house just to take care of themselves or their family. If I didn't have coverage I don't know what I would have done when I was sick. I might not have gone to the hospital when I did because I didn't have the money and would have certainly died.

No one - poor or rich - should have to make that decision.

 Yes, that is the first step.   Providing everyone HC so they can continue to eat poorly etc.. will do what for them besides allow them to buy more drugs?  Do you believe doctors can make you healthy with pill?  If so, the really we have nothing to talk about.  We will never agree.

I will say this.  If its Gov ran then it will be ran poorly & slowly.  Like everything else they do.  Co-Worker is trying to get money from the Gov for Sept on his GI Bill.  This is Mar.  He has to fax everything because the office he needs to speak with does not have a phone ( So they tell him )  To try to get me to believe Gov. ran HC will be far better than that or what we see elsewhere is just not going to happen.

 Turning to the Gov is not a solution.  Its expanding the problem.   You say they will not do some of the fears some of us have.  Have you ever known them to stop?  Its always a little here.  A little there.  Until they have it all.  

We did not have a HC problem years ago?  Why?  We did not have the amount of crap they are now putting into what they are calling food.  Do you think our bodies all of a sudden are becoming insulin resistant?  No, so much sugar in products is doing that.  Basically 9 teaspoons of sugar ( 36 Grams ) in an 8 Oz soft drink.  Drink a 20 Oz & you have just taken in 90 Grams of sugar in one drink.  Now multiply by 3 or 4 a day & add in a few candy bars for a few years & hello type 2.

Sorry to hear you think taking care of yourself is not the answer.  I live my life without drugs ( Use to be on 3 daily prescriptions ) with a change of lifestyle I'm off of all 3..  I still enjoy a pizza.  I still enjoy candy.  I just greatly reduced how much I put into my body. I started eating better & slowly I can off my prescriptions.  I'm healthier at 43 & in better shape than I was at 27.

Did you see the movie Wall-E BTW?  Where everyone was to damn fat to move & robots had to do everything for them?  Its funny but really I can see that day arriving.

Am I correct with this statement?  In your opinion its useless to try & educate people on their health & what makes them in bad health?  

I don't think you're going to find anyone on here disagreeing with your "eat healthier, drugs are not the answer" repetition.

We get it.  Really.

What we're not getting is your solution to the problem.  How do you implement such a plan?  How do you suggest that health care be run?

Do you plan to have the government get involved in any way?  Do you expect all of America to suddenly start eating healthy?  Obviously not, so what's your answer?

 Nothing will alleviate you bills.  However, it is my opinion that less people means cheaper bills for you.  Remember Phram & Hospitals are a business.

No one has addressed this yet.  Why would a young adult want to be a doctor when they know the Gov will control everything they do & their pay?   What is the advantage & disadvantage?

The plan is to leave it alone & let things work themselves out.

Just like our economy.  Obviously what the Gov is doing is not making Wall St. happy.

Glad you went.

 What about the down side of Gov. provided HC?  Or are you simply dismissing it?

I will join the chorus and repeat myself:

Dphins4me, what is your actionable solution to the problems we are facing?

Sitting back and hoping that healthy living spontaneously happens does not work.  There is effectively no one in America who is unaware that eating better and exercising will improve your health.  We have had it drilled into our heads in school since the '50s.

edit:
So then, your "plan" is to do nothing.

This has been tried for the last... well, forever.  It has failed.  This is why we are at the point that we are at now.

Insurance Comp have already started.  If you are not taking care of yourself, then you pay more for your care.  Some States ( Alabama ) put a " Obesity Penalty " in their plan.  

You start with hitting people in their wallets, because the sad fact is that is the only thing people pay attention to.  Hit them hard enough & they will make changes or learn to live with less money.  Provide them with the information they need to get healthy. Majority will change in time.  Once you get off soda's, fast food they do not taste nearly as good as they use to.  Your taste buds change & stop getting use to the sodium & sugar in processed foods.

As insurance rates come down then the people who cannot get HC will be able to purchase it.  IMO.

So basically because people are not interested in their own health we cater & take care of them?

Back at you.  My original post was how do you think Gov provided HC should work?  How should it.    Did you ever give how you think it should work?  Which is what I was wanting.

 

Okay, here's the problem.

You are giving some solutions (although some I find extremely poor), but at least they're there.  ...mostly through education and changes to the insurance structure.  Who makes those changes?  Without government involvement, you can't force that change on businesses, and they won't just do it themselves.  Who pays for the education you're describing?  Who sets the standards for such education?

  We cannot take care of everyone because they come from a bad gene pool. 

That is just incorrect.  Did you ignore my reply to you.  Its not occasional use its the abuse of those products.  Having a pizza today is fine, just do not follow it up tomorrow with a couple of Big Macs & fries for lunch, then fried chicken for supper.

Report today in USA paper that 25% of kids vegetables come from french fries.  Now that is just freaking sad.   Eat your vegetables': For kids, it means fries (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-01-vegetables-fries_N.htm)

  Change is coming.  Businesses will be changing HC especially with what is going on.  I do not get asking people to take an interest in their health is a poor solution, but providing them care is the best solution.  Its like saying.  Here continue to do what makes you sick & we will pick up the tab for your self induced health issues.

My company is doing it.   We get a $600 dollar credit towards our HC with involvement in a health program.  They send out daily Emails on health & have a website set up for us to find out where aliments come from.  What are the driving forces of triglycerides would be an example.

I lack your optimism that this is just going to happen on its own by "telling people".

Although, health programs, like the one at your work seem like a good idea.  I don't see why that's something that couldn't be done with a government run health care system.

Unfortunately, I think your solution is just wishful thinking.  How long are you thinking this change will take to happen?  I'll be checking back on you.

Almost, but not quite.

We take care of people because:

1) Americans deserve to have quality healthcare regardless of their income
2) The current system only takes care of those who are well-off enough to afford healthcare insurance (and then, only if they don't get seriously sick)

I think it will work in a manner vastly superior to our current system.

As for the exact details, it is a disservice to imagine that any of us are going to describe all the intricacies of a national health plan in the space of a few posts.  The broad strokes:

- all citizens have access to gov't funded healthcare, without "pre-existing condition" exceptions or coverage caps
- this is accomplished through a single-payer system (a gov't health insurance "company"), not nationalizing the medical industry
- private insurance will still be available to those who wish to purchase it

Essentially, a system somewhat similar to that of our public schools; you can send your kids to a private school if you want, but no one will be denied an education based on lack of ability to pay.  The same would go for a health plan.

Wow...Nice to know that I come from a "bad gene pool" and therefore don't deserve affordable health care. I really hope that no one in your family gets sick, because I don't think you're really prepared to face that challenge.

Dphins4me - you have asked over and over to not insult you and just have dialog.  I respect that and want to address that upfront before making this statement so it's very clear that I am not attacking and / or judging you. 

I remember a post a while back where you spoke about putting certain things into your body, not eating any type of animal product, things having to be organic.  A diet that some (correct or not) would view as a little extreme.  You're talking about health care but the subject keeps veering off to how people take care of themselves (I understand the connection).  One has to wonder how much of this is a personally driven agenda?

I happen to agree that a huge majority of the population in this country is lazy.  The obesity is off the charts.  I thought maybe you might want to speak about that as it seems that you're holding back a little bit? 

Basically - you seem to have a very firm grasp between what you'll put in your mouth as a direct result of how your body will process it and, in the end, how it alters your health.  I actually respect that a lot.  I would think that those thoughts HAVE to tie in with your opinions?

How are they basing their decisions on what is obese? The BMI is a joke and very inaccurate. Calipers have a significant +/- margin, and I would hate to have to pay more because I was on the wrong side of an error margin.

The pool of people who do not practice unhealthy habits and suffer from genetic diseases would not be that big. It must be nice to come from a family line that does not have a history of disease even if you take precautions.

Oh it will not happen.  Why?  For the same reasons seen here.  We are to interested in feeding someone instead of feeding them first to get them started & then helping them feed themselves.  So they become self sufficient.   Why work when you do not have to provide for yourself & the Gov is providing everything for you.  Ever heard of the woman Sharon Jasper?  Google the name.

The problem when it comes to Gov HC is simple.  It is/will be simply a devise to garner votes.  This is not about helping Americans.  Its about thinking you are helping them so they will vote for you.   

Example.  Obama says he is not raising taxes on low & middle class.  Wrong.  He is not raising income taxes on low & middle class.  He is raising the taxes on the items they use ( Energy ).  Its a magicians tick. ( slight of hand ) He is giving or not taking money in one hand, but turning around & taking it with his other hand.  They know majority of the public pays no attention to any other tax besides income & some times sales.  Heck I bet you 99% of Americans do not know how much they pay in taxes with each gallon of gas they use.

Truthfully & I've made this point several times.  I do not have a problem with Gov HC for a transition periods as I do not have a problem with Gov assistance ( money ) for the same transition periods. Guy I work with in order to save his family had to quit his higher paying job to move back home so he & his wife would make it & stay together as a family.  Had 3 kids. She refused to move to Knoxville.  He had to pay $1200 a month for 3 months ( while not having a job ) until he found another job ( Not with my company )

Do not have a problem with the Gov covering them for that 3 months.  I have a serious problem with just simply providing people with life time coverage.   I know the percentages of people without HC.  I do not know the true percentage because as RTW post.  A high majority are young people who can, but do not take it.

The ones for it are playing the bleeding heart story of no one should be without HC. Its sad no doubt.   Guys if you haven't noticed America is broke.  We are continually going to China for money.  ( Which is a major concern for me, but that is another thread ) 

As with another co-worker.  He ran up 12K on a credit card.  When I ask how.  He said he borrowed some money to help a family member out.  Not sure how much, but my reply was outside of your mom/dad ( Dads been on disability since my co-worker was a child, but still able to go 3 wheelin & do home repairs on the side ) if you are borrowing the money to help someone out.  You do not have it to give.

 I do not see how America can afford Gov funded HC.  We as a county do not have the facilities much less the cash to allow people to run to the doctor at will.  So getting an appointment will not be quick when you throw another 47 million into the pot.    Then the cost of going to the doctor will go up, which will increase the cost on Gov..   The cash to cover it is simply not there.

Again I do not have a problem with covering children as I've stated in many threads.  Kids need to have a chance to be a productive member of this country.

As I pointed out earlier with another co-worker.  Its 6 months & he still is trying to get the Gov to cover his schooling from 6 months ago.  6 months & you guys seem to think the HC will be quick & easy?  I simply do not get that.

Also, its obvious that Obama's plans are not helping the stock market ( But that to is another thread )

This is where we differ.  Americans deserve freedom & opportunity.  What they do with it is their choice.

As I just post.  Where is this money coming from.  We are a trillion dollars in debt already & planning to spend more.  The money is not there & neither or the facilities to with stand 47 million more people

Providing HC for everyone sounds nice, but lets be real.  Where are these two things going to come from?

As far as coverage.  I agree.  As far as other things.  We disagree.

You nut shelled it & that is all we can do.

Budda made this point.  Maybe & I do not know how the but maybe the Gov helps pay when the cost exceeds their coverage so families do not go broke because of illness..( See I'm not a bad guy ) Which I do believe the Gov. helps increase those cost in things like cancer.  ( Side note:  I believe they know more about it than they are telling us )

Ok.  Would you not expect cost to increase with the demands of another 47 million?  I believe it will & the Gov will step in and nationalize the medical industry.

So back to the haves & have nots.  The rich will be able to buy better & get faster service because of the last of paper work, as the rest of use deal with Gov.

  Which is still the haves & have nots.  Rich are able to afford better private schools, while the rest of us deal with public education, which we already know is not working.

  Never said you do & no one said you do not deserve HC.  You do not deserve HC because of your aliment either.

 My family history is gall bladders.  Most of us do have some family history to deal with.

I'm not gonna read through all the dribble,so excuse me if this has been mentioned...

Perhaps make all the general Doctors,federal employees,take the Doctors costs,out of the healthcare system...Have them rated and reviewed each year, for pay increases etc,etc....Hopefuly with full transparency,so we can tell which doctors have bad track records of mistakes....Just an idea...

I have no healthcare,and after what I deal with my my Mom it doesn't seem like having insurance does any good....I'm still paying through the nose for shitty care...I'm all for it being run by the government....

I know too many people that run to the doctor for every little headache,cough,sneeze and bruise....I think there should be a cap on who gets free healthcare, say 50 grand,then you pay a percentage of the cost the more you make,the more you pay...I think to help curb the abuse of free healthcare,I think if the doctor feels it's frivolous,the patient should pay for the care....Maybe limit the number of doctors visits for initial diagnosis....

Just all Ideas....

Would socialized medicine cover eye care,and dentists?

If my politicians can "trick" me into voting for them by passing laws that benefit me, I'm all for it.  I'm not sure how else you think representative gov't is supposed to work.

Then those are people who do not have health insurance.  If I have the opportunity to buy healthcare insurance at some prohibitively expensive price, and I choose not to do it, then you think I shouldn't count as a person without insurance?

Going by the figures RTW cited, Canadians pay ~1% of their income towards their national healthcare plan.  I pay over 10% of my gross paycheck for my healthcare plan... and I have a hell of a lot less coverage than any Canadian.  Our current system is a joke.

Latent calls for a newfound sense of fiscal responsibility fall on deaf ears.  I do not accept that it is perfectly okay to spend money we don't have on foreign wars, but when it comes to actually helping our citizens, somehow fiscal policy must be maintained above all.

I do not consider the freedom to be sick, or the freedom to amass overwhelming healthcare debt, to be worthwhile, desirable freedoms.

Fundamentally, I see providing healthcare for every citizen as more important to their ability to actually realize their freedom than a slight tax break, or some abstract concept of personal liberty.  Healthcare costs greatly curtail the actual freedom of too many Americans.

What exactly do you mean by "increased cost"?

I can envision no circumstance in which the medical industry is nationalized.

...

This is how it works right now!  The haves can already buy better and faster service!

The only difference is that instead of the have nots getting nothing, they have access to the basic healthcare they need.

Under the British system, doctors earn bonuses based on their ability to reduce the health problems (cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.) of their patients.

Would you complain about people who take their car to the mechanic for "every little problem"?

A free national healthcare program encourages people to use it.  This is a good thing.  The more often patients visit with their doctors, the more likely it is that problems can be resolved early on.  If you visit a doctor because you're wheezing and are frequently short of breath, it's easier to treat a sickness in the early stages than if you wait until you are bedridden and can barely breathe.

Again, for purposes of clarity and correct terminology, we're talking about a single-payer system (gov't insurance), not socialized medicine (gov't doctors).  But yes, I believe dental and vision would be covered.

Cool.  There is no need to insult here.  We ( the posters ) disagree on several things.  To get personal destroyed the thread.  I do not dislike anyone because of their politics.  I'm training a guy right now that is a Dem.  We talk this stuff all the time.  He provide me views I've not thought of & I do the same.

  First off I'm not a vegetarian.  I love my meat.  Generally chicken & fish.  Red meats are not a major part of my diet, but I still eat it about once a week.  So if I ever posted no animal products then I truly would not know why.  However, I have no problem with eating animal products. ( I do not drink milk )

I do not believe you have to eat organic.  It does help IMO.  I buy organic on certain high pesticide products.  ( Peppers, apples, peaches, celery. potatoes ) are a few off the top of my head.  I do not buy organic cucumbers.   

Second.  Not really sure on the personal agenda question.  Can you expand on that if this does not answer you question.  I like to help people ( Believe or not, I do  :D ) I do not like seeing people I know feel bad every day. I see my co-workers sit around all day stuffing their face with cheeseburger & fries & loads of sodas & candy.  Everything they eat is high fat, high calories, low nutritional.  I like these guys know their families.  I know the odds are they will not make it to see their families grow up or grow old with their wife.  One guy just took on his grandchildren ages 5 & 8 because his step-daughter is a PoS.  He is 50.  His wife does not work.  He is needed in his household.  However he is carrying ~75 Lbs in his chest & around his heart. You see him from behind & you cannot tell he is obese.  Just about all of them make fun of the way I eat & think I'm trying to live to be 125.  As I tell them.  Its not about longevity, but quality of life.  Same story I've told here.

  My left hand use to shake constantly ( fibro ) & I was on a prescription for it.  It went away when I started eating better & changed my household cleaning agents.   People roll their eyes at such claims.  Why?  Because green cleaning products might cost .50 more & you might have to use a little more elbow grease.

Most of them say, well I'll just die.  My reply. If you are lucky, you will just die.

   They have huge guts & majority of them feel poorly in general & sit around passing gas at will ( Not normal ).  When you are carrying 75 to 100 Lbs more on your body, its take a toll.  If you do not believe me simply pick up a 50 lb bag & strap it on your back. See how long you can carry it around.   If you can do it all day, I'd be surprise.  Now just imagine if you had no choice to put it down. 

 I do have an agenda, but I gain nothing from my agenda other than knowing I have helped someone.   I'm not out here financially gaining from someone eating better.  I think people would be amazed at how great they would feel if they simply ate better & doing it for a week is not going to work. It takes time.  I'd bet anyone that if they would stop eating/drinking sugar & only drank good water for 3 months & then tried to drink a soft drink that it would only take one drink for them to throw it away because it is just to dang sweet ( Remember 9 teaspoons in an 8 Oz serving ).

Its not a cure all for everything that ails us.. You can do all this & still end up with a problem.  However, you will have beaten the odds the wrong way.   I hear eating organic is expensive.  Well so is cancer.  Will you get cancer by not eating organic.  I do not believe so.  Just wash the stuff really good before eating it.  I use a Veggie Wash product. 

Co-worker continuously say I cannot afford to eat like you do.  How much did you pay for that burger/fries/drink.  $6 bucks.  I've got $2 in this piece of chicken & the spices are cheap.  Probably about .50 in my veggies.  My water is .78 cents a gallon & you cannot afford to eat like me?  I can't afford to eat like you. 

It takes about 20 minutes to cook a good meal.  No one can tell me they do not have the time on a every day basis to do that.  However, its simply to easy to run through a fast food place to grab a quick meal or buy a frozen dinner or something you just heat up in the oven.  I use to live that life.

Speak in what why?   I hear from people.  My grandfather ate sausage & eggs every morning & he lived to be 87.  Well, what did your grandfather do all day.  He work from dust till dawn on a farm.  You are doing what?  Sitting behind a desk?  Slight difference.  BTW Eggs are really great for you.  Just not everyday.

  I'm sure it does.    Since I reference my co-workers.  They sit around & talk about the cost of HC.  Saying they need to do something about it.  My question to them.  What are you doing about your health?  No reply.  I ask. Whys hould they do something about HC cost, when you are not interested in doing something for yourself to help control those cost?  No reply.  They leave the room saying.  We I do not know what the answer is.   They just want someone else to pay for them to eat poorly, not exercise.

We have workout equipment ( Cardio ) for our use during work.  I'm the only one who uses it.  3 O'clock in the morning I'm in there working out.  The rest, if nothing is going on.  Sleeping or playing on the computer.

Sorry, for rambling some.  If not what you were looking for simply expand on the question.   I was not sure of what you were looking for.

Not read their plan, so I cannot speak to it.  I just know they are doing it.

  I agree & I do not.  My sister has had far more trouble than I.  However, she abused her body for to long.  She is in the process of changing though & feeling better.

 When I started having problems is when I took action & woke up to what was going on & started putting quality food into my body.  Over the course of a few years I was able to drop all of my prescriptions, saving me $60 to 80 a month.  I spend about $40 -50 a month on organic items & green cleaners.

Excellent response, thank you for taking the time to put that out there for me.  That answers my questions completely.  I also enjoy the fact that you think about using any product, I wish I had your discipline.

I would love to discuss your fibro diagnosis and responses to treatment some day (whole new topic).

Thanks again, good post.

  Because Gov should be about the whole & not just a certain ones.  Gov. should not play a role in whether you are a success or failure.

Gov is making people lazy & dependent on them.  Sitting there waiting for our next meal ticket.  With more & more taking this route.  How do you expect Gov. to pay & pay for everything else?

Why wouldn't you?   What if you were a person who wanted to drive a Mercedes at a cost of $600 a month, but then choose to not have HC so you could?  Would you not to be expected to count?

I've noticed with people..  They want things they need to be cheap, but do not mind paying an expensive price for things they want.  Some one will drop $4000 on a new plasma TV, but complain if they are asked to pay $2500 for HC.

  As with the other percentages you quote & have not provided yet on the on them being happy with their HC.  Where are you pulling that 1%?

My comment has nothing to do with the cost of war.  We do not have the money for it either.  However, facts are facts.  We are in debt, China basically owns us & we cannot continue to spend.

  If people are so concerned with HC cost, then why are they not taking an interest in themselves?  I get you believe this, but could be wrong that taking a pill makes you healthy?  Are you taking an interest in your own health? 

The same reason it cost so much now.  Medical facilities are in demand.  The higher the demand the higher the cost.   47 million more able to run to the doctor for a sniffle will put a higher demand on our facilities.

When the cost go up because of the higher demand.. 
1: Gov will be paying more.
2: Gov will be asking for more taxes. 
3: People will complain.
4: Gov will step in to control the cost.  Only way to do that.  Nationalize.
...


The cost of this will be unimaginable. 

Great & PM me if you want to discuss the fibro.

Does this mean simply putting them on drugs?

Yea, if they were asking someone else to pick up the tab.

  Then you waited to long.  If you are wheezing for a few days, then you might not need to go to the doctor.  Been wheezing for a several weeks.  Might be time to go.

I'm talking about the people,that cal the doctor,and make an appointment for the same day,they get there,the doctor asks them have you taken anything for this headache,they reply no..the doctor says here's two Tylonal...Bye bye...

I know several of these people,because either it doesn't cost them much,because of their insurence,or they get medicaid..It pisses me off....

**8Hijack***
Yes I hate people that take their cars to the mechanics for every little squeak,but yet again if they can afford it,more power too them....The majority of people can't afford to take their car for regular maintenance,let alone for necessary things as reccommended...

My Father the crook,in the 1970's owned many car dealer ships..People that Did bring their car in for every little thing,would get the " Sun treatment".Park it out back,maybe with the hood open for 2,4,6 hours,charge them $100,maybe have the Salesman take it to get lunch....8 out of ten times the customer would swear it's purring like a kitten afterwards.....**End hijack***

It's funny that you word your response this way, since you seem to value the financial freedom of "certain ones" over a system that would benefit a very large chunk of the whole.

I do not view healthcare for every citizen as making them "lazy and dependent," any more than I see public schools as making parents "lazy and dependent."

Because the insurance is prohibitively expensive.

If your argument is that there are a substantial number of Americans that have access to healthcare no matter how expensive, then every American has access to healthcare.  (Well, except the ones that the ins.co.s refuse to insure because of "pre-existing conditions.")  But this is a useless exercise; the real question is whether Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

Read the thread.  I clearly stated, "going by the figures RTW cited," which should give you a clue.

Are you familiar with the term "bargaining power"?  When the gov't enters the market, prices will go down, not up.

Any doctor that does not want to accept gov't-insured clients should be free to do so; if you want to eliminate 90%+ of your potential clientele, have fun running your business.

Drugs are one of the tools that the doctors have at their discretion.

Let me rephrase my question:

If you are responsible for all major repairs of this vehicle, and you are the one that will be required to spend large amounts of money fixing expensive, systemic problems due to lack of maintenance, are you still going to complain about the driver taking the vehicle to the mechanic "a little too often"?

Your argument only makes sense if you ignore the fact that the gov't would be ultimately responsible for treating major health problems.  As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; I'd rather have people go to the doctor with minor concerns than wait around for the minor concerns to become major ones.

Are you qualified to give a medical opinion on exactly how long one should wait?  Can you confidently say that waiting "several weeks" will not make the problem much worse... when you don't even know what the disease is?

This is exactly why people should not be discouraged from visiting the doctor.

I'll be happy to accept people making an appt. to cure a headache if it means we catch more people in the early stages of pneumonia.

I'm sure some of the medical professionals on this board (e.g. MaineDolfan) have more insight as to the kinds of diseases that can be effectively stemmed with early diagnosis.

^^you're missing the point...People go to the doctor for a headache,every other week,and it's nothing....

No, you're missing the point.

What percentage of patients do you suppose first-day-headaches are?  Even under our current system, are you going to get a same-day appt. for a headache you developed today?

You are exaggerating a non-existent problem.  I'm saying that the vanishing minority of "frivolous" visits are an acceptable loss, if it means that we catch the effectively-treatable diseases as early as possible.  People should be encouraged to visit their doctor... it will keep costs DOWN in the long run.

 ::) ::) ::) the exact reason why I didn't why to even start in this thread.....Half my Fucking office goes to the Doctor because they can.....They've never come up with Brain Tumors...Stop Piulling Bull shit Dan...People do take advantage of the system....

Lil B, I have a question for you:

If "half your office" goes to the doctor right now, when they have to pay for it, who are you to call it frivolous?  How is it "taking advantage of the system" to legitimately use health insurance that they are paying for?

If you think it's "taking advantage of the system" NOW, then of course you'll think it's taking advantage when the gov't is paying for it.

I am also forced to wonder how you can possibly know what your co-workers "excessive" doctor visits have or have not prevented.

My Boss,pulled a muscle playing raquet ball (hamstring)...Went to the doctor....2 of the girls in the office...1 everytime she gets a headache,I need an hour off...I have a doctor's appoinment.....She's fine the next day...He gives her 2 asprin send her on her way...The other girl...Every other month,when she gets her period,she has to run to the Doctor....She gets cramps,they give her Mydol,or pamprin..or something....

It's not preventive stuff..It's B.S...The Doctor is more than happy to see him,he gets paid......They don't have to pay for it,If the Bill was $200 each time,they might use a little common sense...A little common sense goes along way....

Modified to say...I understand I can't feel someone elses pain...but Alot of their Complaints are frivolous.

They stand outside My office and Bitch about the doctor's visits......I went to the Doctor,Because I had a haedache blah, Blah,Blah...

Been thinking on this comment a little & to expand on.

Do you have a retirement plan?  401K, IRA, Pension

 If so,

If the Gov. or the people to satisfy Fau, decided that a retirement was a necessity/right for everyone & in order to fund it then would you be alright if they seized 15% of your fund in order to pay out to everyone in retirement?

Not quite the same, but in the ballpark.

Financial system is open for everyone to make of it for what they can.  Poor people have became rich by working within the system.

You may not see if, but its there.   HC in itself may not be but its just another item for people to get from them.

So are brand new cars & trucks, but until recently it has not prohibit people from purchasing them.

  Who determines what is affordable?

Did RTW post that 92% of Canadians are happy with there HC?  Gonna have to go back then.

Going to have to show me how the prices go down when Gov enters the market.   My cable bill went up when they started regulating it.

  Back to the point.  Why would anyone pay the cost of medical school to have the Gov. tell them what they can charge? or is the Gov going to pick up that tab?

   How many doctors know more than drugs anymore?


  Probably not.  However, you get 300 million doing it & the cost of those simply check ups will greatly increase.

The difference is no one will die if a mechanic is wrong.  However, a doctor is wrong or does not order the right test he is open to a malpractice claim.  So they are putting more of a burden on the system.


  If a condition is advancing that a couple of weeks is deadly.  Then I'd say the odds are against you making it.  This is another reason HC is so costly.  Doctor are now ordering unnecessary test to cover their arses from a malpractice claim.

More test being ran, more cost to the system.

They already decided this in the 1930s.  It's called Social Security.  I've been paying into it since I was 17.

We are talking about healthcare.  The other possibilities are not relevant to this discussion.

a) The gov't regulates the healthcare industry now.
b) Cable bills go up whether the gov't enters the market or not.

However, that's not what we're talking about.  We're not discussing gov't regulation; we're discussing the gov't as an insurance provider.  The better analogy would be if the gov't decided to provide their own cable services.

So are prices going to spiral up out-of-control due to increased demand, or spiral down to nothing due to gov't price restrictions?  Please decide which extreme you are anticipating.

The answer to your question is that being a doctor will still be a well-paying profession.  Average doctors in the UK earn £110k (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7070655.stm) ($154k) per year.

And again, if being told what they can charge the gov't is such a heinous and untenable restriction, I am forced to wonder how/why defense contractors exist.

It is necessarily true that more visits to an office = more chances for malpractice, in the same sense that the more customers a store has, the more complaints and product returns they will experience.

This is not a credible argument against a healthcare system.  It is a perversion of logic to claim that seeing more patients is somehow bad for doctors because of the extra potential liability.

  Do want to add to this.  See the difference between what you consider prevention & what I do?

To go with my comment that American are lazy when it comes to their health.  Here is something some of my co-workers are looking at

Vitatrim (http://performancemedicine.net/The_NEWS.htm)

Lets get a shot that will help us lose weight.  No concern with what might be in it.  Just as long as it helps them lose weight.

The cost?  Not concerned with it.  I think its something like $125 a shot.

Your idea of "prevention" is outside the scope of this thread, since you are talking about avoiding sickness altogether while I am discussing taking care of a minor problem before it becomes a major problem (which is relevant to a discussion on how to implement a healthcare system).  Unless you have a plan for forcing or otherwise directly incentivizing people to avoid getting sick at all, you are simply off-topic.

As for my idea of "prevention"... I consider maintenance to be a form of prevention.  The human body is not impervious to illness, no matter what your lifestyle is.  If I replace my brake pads when they start squeaking, I may be preventing a catastrophic brake failure and potential crash.  Similarly, if I visit the doctor when I have a discoloration of my skin, I may be preventing skin cancer from getting a serious and costly hold on my body.

Two things. 
1: Remember that Social Security is going broke.
2: What if it wasn’t & they still wanted to even up the difference between you & the less fortunate who might not have worked at a job where they could have had a 401K or not worked at all..  By how you say you feel.  It would be in the best interest of the country to provide more with a better retirement plan.

So would you be opposed to this idea?

True we are.  However you cannot deny its simply another step.

Pretending to regulate the drug companies is not the same regulation we are talking about.

That they do, but there was a noticeable jump just because of the regulation back in the day.

Fair enough.

You already know.  I expect both. First the increase in price because of increase demand.  Second the Gov to step in a nationalize HC.


  What does the avg Brit make to compare that too.

   Fewer defense contractors than there are doctors. Deeper pockets also.

Do you think Halliburton was not the company they had in mind when they went to war? 

It is credible, because that was not what I was saying.  Doctors order useless test to cover themselves in today’s  sue happy world.  The cost of these useless test is another driving part of HC cost..

Lil B is talking about people running to the doctor for a headache.  Brain scans are not cheap.

 When John Ritter died in a emergency situation from something that would have been way down the list of things that could be causing his problem.  They tried to sue.   Luckily those doctors won, but they had to cover the cost of the case which we all know was not cheap.  Doctors play the lets jump to the worst case scernio much more than they ever have.

A stronger body & stronger immune system helps prevent illnesses.

When you start testing minors as major on everyone then the cost go up.

The key is to allow your body a chance to heal itself.  Rushing to the doctor for every little headache because it might be a brain tumor ( Kindergarden Cop ) is not cost effective.

Actually, that's not the case.  I've seen you say this many times, but things actually get less expensive when they are used more.  You get to take advantage of economies of scale.

If we ran a lot more preventative tests, they'd get cheaper.  The overall cost would be more, of course, but the per-person cost would, without a doubt, go down considerably.

  It may get less expensive on operating cost.  I do not see how higher demand for limited number of MRI machines would decrease the actual cost of getting the usage of one of the machines. 

Because you're assuming that the number of machines wouldn't increase.  Of course it would.  That number would not stay stagnant.  If more people were going to get MRIs, there's be more machines, cheaper to produce, etc.

It works that way with any technology.  As it's used more, companies can sell the products for cheaper.

Wouldn't you have to have the facilities to accommodate the new machines?  Those machines are not small.  Meaning you would have to expand the building or build a new facility to houses them.  Which would be a cost they would want to recoup.