Socialized Health Care Thoughts

[Dphins4me]

  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.

[Sunstroke]

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.

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.

[Dphins4me]

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:

A typical Vital Measures program design might combine a $2,500 deductible medical plan with a supplemental plan that allows the employee to earn up to $2,000 in deductible credits if each of the four health benchmarks are met or exceeded. Under this plan, the credit is doubled for family coverage based on the employee’s results of both the health screening and health assessment. Covered spouses and dependants are not required to participate in the health screening, but spouses do need to complete the health assessment.

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.

[run_to_win]

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.

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?

[run_to_win]

  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? 

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.

[Dphins4me]

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.

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.

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. 

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.  

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?

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?

[Dphins4me]

No offense, but WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN? 

Fair point.

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? 

Its not.

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

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

[Gabriel]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[BoSoxGrl]

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.

[Dphins4me]

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.

Just Google

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

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).

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

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'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.

[Dphins4me]

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.

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.

[run_to_win]

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.

[BoSoxGrl]

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.