Be a Supporter!

Us Health Care System Broken

  • 3,011 Views
  • 66 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 1st, 2012 @ 08:22 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: no its not.

What is it then?

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 1st, 2012 @ 10:02 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1 hour ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: no its not.
What is it then?

it should be bought, I mean by paying for your own insurance and paying off the amount of money the insurance didn't pay off. like the current system just with lower costs...

not that universal shit.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 1st, 2012 @ 10:30 PM Reply

At 27 minutes ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: it should be bought, I mean by paying for your own insurance and paying off the amount of money the insurance didn't pay off. like the current system just with lower costs...

What is your opinion on those who cannot pay for their healthcare for whatever reason?

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 1st, 2012 @ 11:02 PM Reply

At 29 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: What is your opinion on those who cannot pay for their healthcare for whatever reason?

then get out of that predicament and look for a low cost insurance provider that will help you with bare minimum coverage.

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 1st, 2012 @ 11:30 PM Reply

At 3 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 19 minutes ago, SmilezRoyale wrote: Much of the addiction to junk foods is due to the addictive nature of Corn Sugar. Corn sugar is used instead of Cane sugar because it's cheaper, and it's cheaper due to corn subsidies. If the subsidies were removed, and/or if a tax was levied on corn sugar, cane sugar or some other kind of sugar would probably become more prevalent.
I have heard so much food conspiracy bullshit like this that I would need a reputable source before I bvelieve this for one second.

Which claim, the one about Subsidies to corn growers or about the affects of corn sugar in particular?

Sorry if i prove to be wrong, but I'll assume you're referring to the latter claim. Since I've always considered the corn subsidies to be common knowledge, at least among nerdy politico's like me.

I'll assume that Princeton University is reputable enough for you.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/12/12/22428/
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

The first article deals with the addictive effects of HFCS, the second with it being worse in terms of weight gain.
"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

Farm subsidies are important. A large able agricultural industry allows a nation as large as the US to be as independent as possible when it comes to food.

I can't address this point because I'm not really sure why you think they are necessary. We don't share the same economics, so you'll have to enlighten me. Sorry :(

The education has been wholly misguided. Education has focused on nitpicky overly scientific shit that has a propesnity to only be good for a decade. The government needs to focus on portion control, exercise, and an effort to get people to pay attention to what they eat.

What we eat and how much we eat are impossible to truly separate. The nutritional content of the food we eat sends messages to our brain about our appetite. This is why insulin is so important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE

This video basically explains it, and it explains why Insulin resistance is NOT a nitpicky solution. People are eating more because their diet demands it. It *is*, at least in part, a matter of sugar addiction.

It's the constant intake of sugar into the bloodstream that causes the insulin resistance most Americans have, among other problems.

On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 2nd, 2012 @ 12:10 PM Reply

At 12 hours ago, SmilezRoyale wrote: Which claim, the one about Subsidies to corn growers or about the affects of corn sugar in particular?

Sorry if i prove to be wrong, but I'll assume you're referring to the latter claim. Since I've always considered the corn subsidies to be common knowledge, at least among nerdy politico's like me.

You got it right.

I'll assume that Princeton University is reputable enough for you.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/12/12/22428/
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

Here's a quote for the article: "This discovery could have salient implications on the study of sugar addiction in humans. âEUoeAs far as humans are concerned, thereâEUTMs no good scientific evidence yet,âEU Hoebel said."

However, I don't care if this is right or wrong. It still is nitpicky. Americans have a tendency to try to find the "smoking gun" behind obesity. Corn syrup is not single handedly make us sexy supermodels. These reports and claims and diets put out the flase sense that this is the case. We Americans do not have one problem with our diet, we have a whollistic problem with our diet. A large chunk of Americans' diets are flawed at a fundamental level, not just because they include corn sugar.

I can't address this point because I'm not really sure why you think they are necessary. We don't share the same economics, so you'll have to enlighten me. Sorry :(

I'm not making an economic point. I'm making a governmental security point. In the same way energy independence is a manner through which a country can strengthen its security, agricultural independence does, but at a moree funamental level. I do acknowledge that it may skew trhe economy to keep the Ag (not silver) sector strong, this is one of those cases where the interest in national security is much more important than a small sector of our economy.

What we eat and how much we eat are impossible to truly separate. The nutritional content of the food we eat sends messages to our brain about our appetite. This is why insulin is so important.

I know these things are definitely inter-related, but going about it at the scientific end is the wrong direction. We need to be focusing on the big pictures and then using the small picture stuff to bolster it, or to achieve it. When we focus on the small picture stuff, the average American (who is either too busy, too lazy, or too ignorant to see more than one picture at a time) gets confused and sees the small picture, always being a much easier option, as the sole key to good nutritional health.

We need a fundamental change in how we deal with obesity in this country, but then again, there are a lot of things in the healthcare arena that we could use a fundamental change in...

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 2nd, 2012 @ 03:24 PM Reply

At 16 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 27 minutes ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: it should be bought, I mean by paying for your own insurance and paying off the amount of money the insurance didn't pay off. like the current system just with lower costs...
What is your opinion on those who cannot pay for their healthcare for whatever reason?

That they aren't trying hard enough to find ways to pay for it. That they need to seriously rethink their priorities if they value their car or house over their health.

"Dying" from a lack of health insurance is a myth. The people who literally cannot pay for it are covered by Medicaid. Those that suffer from a lack of insurance do so because they made choices about how much of their lifestyle they wanted to sacrifice.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 2nd, 2012 @ 05:17 PM Reply

At 18 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: then get out of that predicament and look for a low cost insurance provider that will help you with bare minimum coverage.

Low cost insurance means low coverage insurance. Expensiver diseases (cancer, kidney failure, paralysis) don't just harm the wealthy.

What should someone do if they have a bottom of the line insurance and are diagnosed with cancer?

At 1 hour ago, adrshepard wrote: That they aren't trying hard enough to find ways to pay for it. That they need to seriously rethink their priorities if they value their car or house over their health.

There definitely certain things peopel can give up, but that is not enough in many cases. Some treatments cost, by themselves, upward of $60,000 a year. That is much more than most Americans make. Also, usually when on these treatments, the ability to work at all is severely dimished. What then?


"Dying" from a lack of health insurance is a myth. The people who literally cannot pay for it are covered by Medicaid. Those that suffer from a lack of insurance do so because they made choices about how much of their lifestyle they wanted to sacrifice.

Tony said that he does not believe health care is a right. Under this claim I assume he includes medicaid in the policies that should not exist.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 2nd, 2012 @ 06:34 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote: There definitely certain things peopel can give up, but that is not enough in many cases. Some treatments cost, by themselves, upward of $60,000 a year. That is much more than most Americans make. Also, usually when on these treatments, the ability to work at all is severely dimished. What then?

Then you enroll in Medicaid and other government programs.

Tony said that he does not believe health care is a right. Under this claim I assume he includes medicaid in the policies that should not exist.

There should be more a distinction between rights and services the government is expected to provide. Medicaid is not a right; Congress could do away with the program if it wanted to without violating the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. While we want our country to have some sort of safety net, providing healthcare is not a indisputable guarantee like freedom of speech or religion.

If healthcare were a right, wouldn't the government be obligated to pay for every health service and item because a right must be freely granted to anyone simply due to him existing?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 2nd, 2012 @ 07:11 PM Reply

At 30 minutes ago, adrshepard wrote: Then you enroll in Medicaid and other government programs.

Again, Tony's comment insinuates that Medicaid and its relaterd programs should not exist.

There should be more a distinction between rights and services the government is expected to provide. Medicaid is not a right; Congress could do away with the program if it wanted to without violating the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. While we want our country to have some sort of safety net, providing healthcare is not a indisputable guarantee like freedom of speech or religion.

There are usually three categories of "rights" out there. There are Civil Liberties, things like speech, religion and so on. these are hgeld very high, but not highest. There are Civil Rights, things like equal treatment of all peopels. Finally there are human rights, such as those to not be torutuered, to have access to food and shelter. Most who claim healthcare is a right put in in the Human right catergory. Many characterize human rights as more basic and mroe fundamental than Civil liberties or civil rights. The government as caretaker of the people is tasked first and foremost with ensuring the basic human rights of its people. Many see healthcare as among this fundamental task.


If healthcare were a right, wouldn't the government be obligated to pay for every health service and item because a right must be freely granted to anyone simply due to him existing?

When people say "right to healthcare" they usually don't mean a right to healthcare 100% funded by the government. they usually mean the right to access to healthcare, and the government's job is to make sure somebody pays for it. With how brokenm our payment system is, it's easy to see how the government paying for it would actually lead to higher efficiency.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 4th, 2012 @ 12:00 AM Reply

At 1 day ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 30 minutes ago, adrshepard wrote: Then you enroll in Medicaid and other government programs.
Again, Tony's comment insinuates that Medicaid and its relaterd programs should not exist.

Only if you consider Medicaid to be a human right.

Most who claim healthcare is a right put in in the Human right catergory. Many characterize human rights as more basic and mroe fundamental than Civil liberties or civil rights. The government as caretaker of the people is tasked first and foremost with ensuring the basic human rights of its people. Many see healthcare as among this fundamental task.

I know we use "many" loosely around here, but I have to disagree. Everything else that we would consider human rights involve being allowed to do something or not being deprived of something. Calling healthcare a human right doesn't work, because it requires someone else to do something for you, as opposed to leaving you free to live how you please.

When people say "right to healthcare" they usually don't mean a right to healthcare 100% funded by the government. they usually mean the right to access healthcare...

They already have it. Obamacare is not about increasing access but shifting costs around.

With how brokenm our payment system is, it's easy to see how the government paying for it would actually lead to higher efficiency.

Doubtful. Hospitals and other health providers already inflate prices among competing insurance carriers. Prices would only go up if the government was the only carrier, unless they were compelled to agree to some inherently inefficent government-mandated price index.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 4th, 2012 @ 01:11 PM Reply

At 13 hours ago, adrshepard wrote: Doubtful. Hospitals and other health providers already inflate prices among competing insurance carriers. Prices would only go up if the government was the only carrier, unless they were compelled to agree to some inherently inefficent government-mandated price index.

I was going more on the idea that the payment system is so needlessly complex with so many middle men that replacing them all with one entity, even a wildly inefficient one will still be better than the load fo crap we have.

However, theat end of the payment is not the part that I feel is most broken. Look to my original few posts to see where I think the biggest problem with our current healthcare is.

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 9th, 2012 @ 01:45 PM Reply

Sorry for the uber late response, but I had a paper to write and I wanted nothing to get in the way. Unlike BBS posts, one Microsoft word page, double spaced, takes me about 4 hours to do if IâEUTMm lucky. So a 5 page paper takes 3 days to complete, at least.

At 13 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
You got it right.
Here's a quote for the article: "This discovery could have salient implications on the study of sugar addiction in humans. âEUoeAs far as humans are concerned, thereâEUTMs no good scientific evidence yet,âEU Hoebel said."

Yes, you start out with a hypothesis and often times you test the hypothesis out on non-human subjects. Hoebel is being careful and not saying that showing how what critics of HFCS say about HFCS is true for rats shows that it's true for humans. It's certainly more cautious than the kind of science that was used to show how fat causes heart disease.

However, I don't care if this is right or wrong. It still is nitpicky.

Now, A Switch to a more evolutionary-based diet for Americans is not going to solve every kind of life-style induced health problem. And I hope I never argued that such was the case. It obviously won't address other kinds of problems like lung cancer.

However, Obesity is directly linked to the body's insulin resistance, which sugar intake plays a key role. And if the new science which contests the lipid hypothesis is correct, it also does play the chief role in HEART DISEASE which is one of the major burdens on life-style induced healthcare costs. A movement away from sugars and starches won't eliminate diabetes or heart disease, but it will have an impact.

Unlike some people I have no grand vision of how âEUoeWeâEU [Read as the Government] Will bring about a healthier public. I do know, however, that the status quo is both politically profitable, and BAD in the perspective of encouraging healthy behavior.

My mentioning Carbs and high fructose corn syrup was also not about advocating a Government Crusade against these things. But to point out 1. The American Diet was healthier BEFORE large scale Government involvement in what the American diet ought to be. 2. The Diet the American Government recommended was, in large part, listened to, and with disastrous results. 3. Governments had, and have, a stronger incentive to tell people to eat things that Agribusiness and/or Vegan evangelists than what is actually.

Number three is absolutely the most important. My HFCS is part of a larger argument about the dangers in trusting the Government to be a force for positive lifestyle changes. Things like the Primal, Paleo, and Atkins diets might be incredible beneficial health effects but the Government has all the reasons in the world to oppose these diets. If it happens that these diets *are* wrong, then the Government being right is a matter of luck rather than something systemic.

As for your broad holistic approach, Exercise and eating less are intuitive measures for improving health. You'll have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't know that these things are good for you, though there will be disagreement as to how effective they are compared to the composition of diet. As such, if you want the Government encouraging people to do these things, you'll have to figure out some way of making people eat less and be more active.

The politically popular method of doing this is taxing sugary foods, but this is simply an attempt to make the foods the Government made artificially cheap expensive again. YouâEUTMre spending tax dollars to simultaneously make foods cheap to produce and then taxing them to make them expensive to buy. Now even when people donâEUTMt realize the link between carbs and sugar, most people realize that soft drinks, candy, etc. are Evil and so taxing them isnâEUTMt pure political suicide.

On the other hand, a âEU~nutritionally neutralâEUTM plan that simply makes people eat less is either going to be impossibly difficult to enforce, or politically suicidal, or both. And if it turns out that there is actually a real relationship between a foods price and its nutritional value, you may actually end up creating a program that encourages people to eat MORE junk in relative terms.
Beyond education, which as IâEUTMve explained is a waste of time because it tells people things they already know, the Government has two basic tools [or I should say, approaches] they can use to discourage eating. The first involves forcibly reducing the amount of food they are able to buy at the individual level, the second is fiddling around with supply and demand and making all food more expensive across the board, presumably through taxation. [Again weâEUTMre assuming nutrition Neutrality, We donâEUTMt know what kinds of food are healthy and which ones are not, so weâEUTMll just encourage people to eat less of everything and hope this works]
LetâEUTMs take the first approach. The government forcibly limits the amount of food people can buy or eat. I think you can understand why this is politically unpopular on multiple levels. Beyond the fact that limiting what food people can buy as an explicit policy would be incredibly unpopular with the general populace, which is of secondary importance, it is also politically unpopular at the level of interest groups, because any policy that cuts a consumer base for an industry would force that industry to contract heavily.
Sin taxes are different, if the sin taxes are on substances with a very inelastic demand [Either a practical necessity in the case of gasoline, or highly addictive in the case of soft drinks, alcohol, or tobacco] the incidence of the tax falls mostly on the consumers. [Sin taxes that fail to do this run the risk of eliminating the business entirely]
Even the most efficient method of enforcing this conceivable would still require quite a bit of effort. To the extent you donâEUTMt have government agents spying on households and supermarkets is the extent to which both households and supermarkets [restaurants too presumably] would greedily ignore the central plan and render the program pointless.
The alternative is to raise prices across the board, forcing people to eat less without having to send the food-gestapo to raid the refrigerators of households. Again weâEUTMll ignore political popularity. The problem with this method is that food typically consists of superior and inferior goods. When the price of all goods rises, the demand for superior goods may fall, but the demand for inferior goods rises proportionally or near-proportionately. So imagine if Steak is originally 20 dollars and hotdogs are 5 dollars, but the government doubles the price of both. Hotdogs are now 10 dollars and steak is 40 dollars. People might marginally buy less steak, but more likely they will engage in substitution, and buy hotdogs instead. Leaving their consumption unaffected.

Now if it turns out that the foods that are typically the cheapest, turn out to be the least healthy. What youâEUTMve done is encouraged people to increase as a proportion of their diet the foods they SHOULDNâEUTMT be eating. Now we started with the assumption of nutritional neutrality as a matter of policy, this doesnâEUTMt imply that nutrition doesnâEUTMt matter; only that we donâEUTMt know what is nutritional and what is not; hence is the idea that the Government ought not encourage one diet over another. But in trying to make all food more expensive, the government DOES encourage a certain kind of diet.
For example, imagine a program aimed at reducing the environmental impact of cars on global warming by making cars more expensive across the board.

Continued on the next post.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 9th, 2012 @ 01:51 PM Reply

While marginally this program might discourage people from buying cars [very likely starting with the poorest of subjects] More likely it will simply encourage people to buy the cheapest cars available. These cars are presumably older models, used cars, which might actually have lower gas mileage than the newer vehicles. IâEUTMve never heard of governments trying to make ALL cars more expensive as a means of environmental protection, and I can theorize why this might be the case, but My point is that if they tried this in the manner described, it would be counterproductive.

We know from studies that lower income areas tend to have higher rates of obesity than upper income areas. This may be due to rich people exercising more, or it may be due to the fact that the kind of diet that the poor can afford is less conducive to health.

What this ultimately means is that the above policy decision is not weighing the possibility of either succeeding or failing, itâEUTMs weighing the possibility of either succeeding or making things much worse.

IâEUTMm not accusing you of holding any of these positions per-say, What I am saying is that any of the conceivable methods of bringing about the kind of result you want are what IâEUTMve shown them to be, rather ridiculous.

Oh and also....

I totally TLDR'ed this right now. Not in the in depth reading mood. (what can you say, it's a Sunday.) I will get back to it. If I don't, (most likely through forgetting) just harass me until I do. - that's from the Capitalism Socialism thread. If you've forgotten about it then this is to remind you. If you've been busy, I understand. I took 5 days before responding to your post here...

I don't know if anyone here has to call me to account for anything else on the issue of Health care. But if not I'm off to other threads to fight other battles. :P


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

HowardWimshurst
HowardWimshurst
  • Member since: Apr. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 05
Animator
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 9th, 2012 @ 04:39 PM Reply

At 2 hours ago, SmilezRoyale wrote: Now, A Switch to a more evolutionary-based diet for Americans is not going to solve every kind of life-style induced health problem. And I hope I never argued that such was the case. It obviously won't address other kinds of problems like lung cancer.

I understand the point and think the study is very important, however, the ADHD-"I want it now" American culture, we need to focus on a whollisitc campaign. This would no doubt include such research, but just not yet. Americans have more fundamental problems with our diets and our lifestyles than just what type of sweeteners we choose.

I am going to give a somewhat odd analogy, but roll with it. Think of the healthy eating aspirations are a house that has not been started yet. Posting the sugar theory now is like building the roof first. Now imagine the people who will soon be moving in can only see the top (this is where the anaolgy gets odd). Not only is the house going to be completely worthless, being just a roof, but the homeowners will congratulate you on a job well done and go on believing their house is complete.

When you give Americans a simple small solution like "eat sugar, not corn syrup" they will congratulate you on curing fatness, and then go about their lives as if obesity has been cured (whilst pounding a Big Mac, Large Fries and 2x32oz Cokes, sweetened with sugar of course.

Just as with that house, we need to build a strong foundation first. Then we can get to the essential, but latter things, like which form of sweetener is healthiest.

Dawnslayer
Dawnslayer
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Blank Slate
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 9th, 2012 @ 05:28 PM Reply

At 45 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: When you give Americans a simple small solution like "eat sugar, not corn syrup" they will congratulate you on curing fatness, and then go about their lives as if obesity has been cured (whilst pounding a Big Mac, Large Fries and 2x32oz Cokes, sweetened with sugar of course.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying a bit, but does it seem to anyone else like the obesity "epidemic" started around the same time fast food chains made medium, large, and extra large drinks into the new small, medium and large?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 9th, 2012 @ 10:27 PM Reply

At 4 hours ago, Dawnslayer wrote: Maybe I'm oversimplifying a bit, but does it seem to anyone else like the obesity "epidemic" started around the same time fast food chains made medium, large, and extra large drinks into the new small, medium and large?

I think that the obesity epidemic caused that switch, not the other way around.

PrincessLuna
PrincessLuna
  • Member since: Oct. 7, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 10th, 2012 @ 11:39 AM Reply

The arguments opposing Social Healthcare are very ignorant, moronic, closed minded and selfish. Healthcare isn't there to make a profit from the sick, it is there to help those in need.

If you're willing to decline someone the appropriate healthcare because of the contents of their wallet, then shame on you. For a nation full of Christians, America doesn't seem to keep to the morals of Jesus Christ. So much for helping those in need. If you're a Christian and oppose Universal/Social Healthcare then please read the "Parable of the Sheep and Goat", and pretty much anything said by Jesus Christ.


BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 10th, 2012 @ 03:30 PM Reply

At 3 hours ago, PrincessLuna wrote: The arguments opposing Social Healthcare are very ignorant, moronic, closed minded and selfish. Healthcare isn't there to make a profit from the sick, it is there to help those in need.

I disagree. Universal health care system are a massive drain on the economy and lack many of the benefits that come from the privatized health care system of the U.S. If anything, I would say that the arguments for social healthcare ignore the negative effects such a system includes and are ignoring the greater good (in this case providing a vastly superior service to the majority of people and providing leaps in medical technology that can benefit the whole world) of mankind in it's entirety and not just the individuals who receive instant gratification from the system.

If you're willing to decline someone the appropriate healthcare because of the contents of their wallet, then shame on you. For a nation full of Christians, America doesn't seem to keep to the morals of Jesus Christ. So much for helping those in need. If you're a Christian and oppose Universal/Social Healthcare then please read the "Parable of the Sheep and Goat", and pretty much anything said by Jesus Christ.

In a perfect world that would be true. In a perfect world mankind would live in absolute harmony with nature and never need anything they couldn't get like food and clothes. This isn't a perfect world and we can't treat it as such. Sometimes bad things happen, sometimes the needs of the few need to be sacrificed for the needs of the many. Once again, this isn't about the individuals getting instant gratification although they are part of it. 40 million Americans are uninsured which is just above 10% of the population, meaning that the negative economic impact of switching systems would harm roughly 90% of the American population. The companies that develop new medicines and technologies, that not only get used in here but also all over the world, would also be harmed. Medicines that treat a disease that is rare in our country are also used to treat epidemics of the disease in third world countries that don't have any way to fight it on their own.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 10th, 2012 @ 05:05 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, djack wrote: Universal health care system are a massive drain on the economy and lack many of the benefits that come from the privatized health care system of the U.S. .

If this were actually the case then why do places like Japan, Canada, and Denmark get vastly superior health care for much less cost?

PrincessLuna
PrincessLuna
  • Member since: Oct. 7, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 10th, 2012 @ 06:28 PM Reply

At 2 hours ago, djack wrote: I disagree. Universal health care system are a massive drain on the economy and lack many of the benefits that come from the privatized health care system of the U.S. If anything, I would say that the arguments for social healthcare ignore the negative effects such a system includes and are ignoring the greater good (in this case providing a vastly superior service to the majority of people and providing leaps in medical technology that can benefit the whole world) of mankind in it's entirety and not just the individuals who receive instant gratification from the system.

"The greater good" better applies to the application of social healthcare ironically. As previously stated though; healthcare is there to reap financial benefit, it is there to help those in need, to benefit the Medical industry and to provide equality to all cultures, classes and like.

A prime example of a flourishing Medical industry is that of the United Kingdom's:

"In 2008 the education, health and social work sector had a total gross value added of around £170.3 billion, of which around £145 billion was compensation to employees.In 2008 the sector had a total gross capital formation of around £17.7 billion.

In 2008 health and social work had a gross value added of around £93.7 billion. In the UK the majority of the heathcare sector consists of the state funded and operated National Health Service (NHS), which accounts for over 80% of all healthcare spending in the UK and has a workforce of around 1.5 million, making it the largest employer in Europe. The NHS operates independently in each of the four constituent countries of the UK. The NHS in England is by far the largest of the four parts and had a turnover of £92.5 billion in 2008."

Those figures speak for themselves.

In a perfect world that would be true. In a perfect world mankind would live in absolute harmony with nature and never need anything they couldn't get like food and clothes. This isn't a perfect world and we can't treat it as such. Sometimes bad things happen, sometimes the needs of the few need to be sacrificed for the needs of the many. Once again, this isn't about the individuals getting instant gratification although they are part of it. 40 million Americans are uninsured which is just above 10% of the population, meaning that the negative economic impact of switching systems would harm roughly 90% of the American population. The companies that develop new medicines and technologies, that not only get used in here but also all over the world, would also be harmed. Medicines that treat a disease that is rare in our country are also used to treat epidemics of the disease in third world countries that don't have any way to fight it on their own.

It is actually 46.7 million Americans without health insurance, of a population of 311,591,917. That is roughly a sixth of the population, not a tenth. It boils down to social responsibility and moving forward, simply as to be honest. A nation cannot claim to be a superpower, great or one of good values if a large volume of its population have poor living standards. The problems are domestic.


BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 10th, 2012 @ 06:32 PM Reply

At 54 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1 hour ago, djack wrote: Universal health care system are a massive drain on the economy and lack many of the benefits that come from the privatized health care system of the U.S. .
If this were actually the case then why do places like Japan, Canada, and Denmark get vastly superior health care for much less cost?

We've already been through why their health care isn't necessarily superior just because they live longer and so far that's the only stat you've given to support the claim that their health care is superior. As for the lower cost, that's because the government regulates how much doctors can charge for their services which discourages the doctors from doing their best work. I actually know several airline employees who go to Canada and pay cash under the table more for services than those doctors would be able to charge a Canadian patient. If you think doctors don't care in America head to Canada and see what they're like making a quarter of what U.S. doctors earn.

Here's a short list of just some of the medical inventions that came from America.
Flexible urinary catheters
Ether (the most effective anesthetic prior to modern methods caused world wide use and regulation of anesthetics)
Dissolvable pills
Medical gloves
Adhesive bandages
The Iron Lung
Peristaltic pumps
That's just to the end of WWII and there are 7 inventions used globally that have had a major impact on the world of medicine. So the next time you need surgery, or medication, or just scrape your elbow and need to put a band-aid on it remember that the inventions used came from America and were funded by our capitalist health care system.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 10th, 2012 @ 09:00 PM Reply

At 2 hours ago, djack wrote:

Are you defining healthcare solely on medical inventions?

Here's a short list of just some of the medical inventions that came from America.

I'm not going to make the claim that competition in the R&D sector is bad. I am making the claim that free market in the providing of care is a problem.

Free market assumes that competition is possible, an equal or at least somewhat informed client, and the ability for the client to choose.

Competition is not much of a factor in healthcare. Very rarely do people pick one hospital over another. They usually choose by location. When that hospital fails, not everyone lives on Capitol Hill in Seattle where they could walk to three other hospitals.

Clients often don't have the ability to choose. They are in many cases highyl diminished or even completely incapacitated.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the health care providers have such a knowledge, volume, and control gap over the patient that the patient doesn't really have the decision making power or the knowledge to second guess, override, or even know of the alternatives.

History has shown time and time again that the free market system becomes a cancer when the power gap between the parties becomes a canyon.

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 14th, 2012 @ 12:17 PM Reply

At 4 days ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 2 hours ago, SmilezRoyale wrote: Now, A Switch to a more evolutionary-based diet for Americans is not going to solve every kind of life-style induced health problem. And I hope I never argued that such was the case. It obviously won't address other kinds of problems like lung cancer.

You're the one focusing on the sugar. Again I was not trying to use it as a centerpiece, I was trying to give an example of a larger behavior. It is, as you might say "More fundamental" .

Reducing Obesity is an abstract benefit. The benefit exists, certainly, but It is not something that can be politically harnessed in the same way that benefits to certain agricultural and industrial groups can.

HFC is an EXAMPLE of what happens when "We" try to promote healthier lifestyles.

But i'm not going to get any more specific than that. I don't think making the same length response I made previously will be worth the time.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 14th, 2012 @ 12:32 PM Reply

At 3 days ago, djack wrote: Here's a short list of just some of the medical inventions that came from America.

i hope you know most of these advances came about before universal health care in any of the countries mentioned.

ether? we aren't evaluating healthcare on how steampunk it is.

VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Mar. 14th, 2012 @ 02:20 PM Reply

At 3 days ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 2 hours ago, djack wrote:
Are you defining healthcare solely on medical inventions?

No, but the developments a country makes to deal with the medical problems of it's people are an indication of a countries success in medical care.

Here's a short list of just some of the medical inventions that came from America.
I'm not going to make the claim that competition in the R&D sector is bad. I am making the claim that free market in the providing of care is a problem.

R&D is funded by general medicine and driven by the desire for profits. In a universal system the government will either pay the same amount that people do without it making the system a massive drain on public funds or the government regulates the prices like Canada has done limiting funding and removing the profit potential of new technologies and drugs.

Free market assumes that competition is possible, an equal or at least somewhat informed client, and the ability for the client to choose.

Competition is not much of a factor in healthcare. Very rarely do people pick one hospital over another. They usually choose by location. When that hospital fails, not everyone lives on Capitol Hill in Seattle where they could walk to three other hospitals.

Clients often don't have the ability to choose. They are in many cases highyl diminished or even completely incapacitated.

If you're talking about there being a lack of hospitals (which you statement about people not living on Capitol Hill would seem to indicate), that won't be fixed by a universal health care system. If you're referring to HMOs only allowing people to see certain doctors that can be fixed by better regulations to the current system without requiring the switch to universal health care.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the health care providers have such a knowledge, volume, and control gap over the patient that the patient doesn't really have the decision making power or the knowledge to second guess, override, or even know of the alternatives.

History has shown time and time again that the free market system becomes a cancer when the power gap between the parties becomes a canyon.

That gap exists in almost every system we have these days as a result of jobs becoming more specialized. If anyone could understand that I would expect it to be you, most of America can't understand legal jargon and are left relying on other people to tell them what a law or contract says. How many people click agree to a terms of use contract for software because if they did take the time to read the 20 page contract just to use something they already paid for they still wouldn't understand what it was saying? How many people have you argued with in the past 6 months because a biased source claimed some law was violating the rights of Americans?

At 59 minutes ago, SolInvictus wrote: i hope you know most of these advances came about before universal health care in any of the countries mentioned.

The point was that they were a result of the American system encouraging technological advances with the opportunity for profits. By the way, Germany has had a universal health care system since the 1880s and Britain started developing its system in 1911. So everything on that list was invented while Germany was using it and adhesive bandages, the iron lung, and the peristaltic pump were invented after the UK started switching over. It's also worth noting that many of the "universal health care" systems used by other countries don't actually provide health care to everyone they either regulate insurance companies to force them to provide affordable plans for lower income families or have systems like Medicare and Medicaid which help the people who can't get health insurance instead of having a public health care fund the way Canada does.

ether? we aren't evaluating healthcare on how steampunk it is.

Yes, the first globalized anesthetic is clearly a bad example of medical advances that impact the world because of how old fashioned it is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Apr. 3rd, 2012 @ 11:02 PM Reply

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has been brought up many times in recent conversations and I am eager to see if any of those folks would be willing to discuss it in this thread where the ACA is on topic.

So, someone who opposes the ACA as a whole, or just the individual mandate section, please tell us what the problems with it are.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Apr. 3rd, 2012 @ 11:23 PM Reply

At 4/3/12 11:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has been brought up many times in recent conversations and I am eager to see if any of those folks would be willing to discuss it in this thread where the ACA is on topic.

So, someone who opposes the ACA as a whole, or just the individual mandate section, please tell us what the problems with it are.

Overall I'm not against the ACA. Removing discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions is great and providing tax breaks so that people can better afford health insurance will help a lot of people. The individual mandate however bothers me. Simply by being a U.S. citizen you'll be required to have health insurance or pay a fine, $95 or 1% of income (whichever is greater) in 2014 when the mandate takes effect and rising to $695 or 2.5% in 2016, which is a little backwards considering this act is supposed to help the people who can't afford insurance. The fact that it has a provision that exempts people from those fines in cases of "financial hardship or religious beliefs" (wikipedia's words, I'm too tired right now to look for the actual bill to get it's exact wording of the exemptions) just means that the people this mandate is directed at aren't going to be affected by it.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us Health Care System Broken Apr. 4th, 2012 @ 12:20 AM Reply

At 4/3/12 11:23 PM, djack wrote: Removing discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions is great and providing tax breaks so that people can better afford health insurance will help a lot of people. The individual mandate however bothers me.

These two opinions strongly conflict with one another.

Simply by being a U.S. citizen you'll be required to have health insurance or pay a fine, $95 or 1% of income (whichever is greater) in 2014 when the mandate takes effect and rising to $695 or 2.5% in 2016, which is a little backwards considering this act is supposed to help the people who can't afford insurance.

I can understand why this seems hinky, or even down right bad in almost every market, but health insurance is different by the very nature of how it works and how we Americans treat it.

The insurance market, unlike the broccoli market, is one of cost sharing, as all insurance markets are. Large amounts of people pay in a very low amount (compared to that of the casualty alone) in the hopes that when someday their turn comes to have a casualty event, the large pool will help reduce or completely remove their costs. However, unlike true casualty insurance (auto, fire, home, etc.) we don't treat health insurance in a matter of 'if' but in 'when' and 'how much/often'. So the outgoing claim costs for health insurance are exponentially higher than other insurances.

Many Americans still go without health insurance until the time they need it. What these people do is go without adding anything into the pool until the moment they have a large casualty to take from it. That means their claim starts off in a huge hole, and often times will never get into the black. This is why the pre-existing claim policy exists. Furthermore, these peopel forego preventative care, so when they actually have a casualty, it is usually avoidable, or much worse than it would have been.

Many other Americans go without health insurance altogether. These people still need care, and hospitals are still required to care for them. Some studies will show the total dollar drain of these people to be somewhat low. However, those studies are deceptive. Those studies don't count charity care. Hospitals that take Medicare are required to provde a certain percent of their total healthcare pro bono. There are also those who get billed for costs out of pocket and just default. In the end the costs eaten by hospitals adds up. Who ends up paying for this? Everyone else. We all pay for it in the form of raised hospital rates and in some cases raised insurance premiums.

So how do we lower to threshold requirements for insurance while still making insurance viable? We have to include everyone for the entirety of their lives. By including the indigent under cheap state insurances or the expanded borders of Medicaid we make it where hospitals can get money from them through insurance. The large number of people who simply chose not to have insurance will no longer be able to game the system.

Without near total participation in health insurance, the lower standards for getting insurance, meant to lower the cost for the individual, cannot be achieved. In essense they'd be making insurance more expensive for the insurers without adding in more revenue.

So, your opinion regarding increased eligibility functionally conflicts with your reservation about the individual mandate.

The fact that it has a provision that exempts people from those fines in cases of "financial hardship or religious beliefs" (wikipedia's words, I'm too tired right now to look for the actual bill to get it's exact wording of the exemptions) just means that the people this mandate is directed at aren't going to be affected by it.

if only the Act weren't so damn long I'd try to find the exact language and see what I could make of it...