hmm

[Allam]

I don't wanna get involved too much in this sort of discussion cause it's boring, but I'll tell you my negative experience with not having free health care here...

My friend died at age 22, he was a year away from graduating with a degree in computer graphics design. He was so young. He had a soar throat and was a person with asthma. He died of an asthma attack and on the ambulance.

Two hours before that, he was refused service at the hospital by the receptionist, he forgot his insurance card and they told him to sit for 15 minutes and fill some papers out, then they told him they can't treat him anyway.

To me it looks like he died cause the whole insurance bs is getting out of hand and hospitals are becoming more like lawyer driven corporate entities rather than real treatment facilities, and that's just sad, treatment shouldn't only be a luxury for rich people.

That just imho.

[MoralLibertarian]

Not trying to be a douche, but why healthcare should be free.

[Allam]

I think so too. I'm tired of paying so much for health insurance "tax" that I never use, and when I actually need it it's not enough.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/30/05 09:10 PM, Allam wrote: I think so too. I'm tired of paying so much for health insurance "tax" that I never use, and when I actually need it it's not enough.

True that. You could pay for your own health insurance if it weren't for the government.

[SEXY-FETUS]

That's unfortunate for your friend. but had there been free health care he would have been behind a stubbed toe a sliver in someones thumb a bruised knee a hypocondriac and 100 other useless visits, his chances may be slightly better, but he would have to be next to dead to get priority over anyone else.

[Allam]

Sure I'll give you that, but that's still better, for him as well as for the people in front of him imho. Most of my friends don't go to the hospital even while having health insurance because they're afraid of the potential costs. With free healthcare they might be complaining about long lines instead, but at least they'll be in a clinic waiting for treatment instead of at home or in their cubicles hoping they recover from whatever they are inflicted with.

If you're not rich, pay for your own bills, and you got sick every now and then, you'd probably know what I'm talking about I'm sure.

[SEXY-FETUS]

I know what your talking about sure. But I would be more afraid that the few times I do need a doctor it would be a terrible burden on my time needed to work to pay bills and what not. I don't know about you, but I never seem to fall ill or injured on free weekends.

[LadyGrace]

Most of the time, they deny service at hospitals because illegal imigrants without insurance are treated and don't pay their bill because the hospital would be financially liable if they were to deny him service. Secondly, you say we're taxed so much for healthcare and yet we don't get it. You think getting free heathcare will make the taxes go down? And why do you feel that the rest of the country should be responsible for the sick? Finally, you think healthcare will be better when it's "free"? The doctors now are already getting bled dry by the government demanding them to fulfill certain regulations and treating certain people who can't pay. If we get "free" healthcare, all the good doctors will stop treating people and you'll get hacks who barely know what they're doing. Look at healthcare in Canada. Canadians come to America to get any major surgery done because their two bit quacks up there don't know what they're doing when handling anything serious. I'm sorry about your friend, and what the hospital did was wrong. But you think backing them into a corner even further will rectify the situation? They're already extorted enough by the government. What you're proposing is making them slaves of the state.

[NecrophiliacOrgy]

In England health care is already 'free'. The hospital treats you relatively quickly ( I broke my hand a month ago and was seen to within 5 mins). Taxes will go up hence the inverted comas surrounding free, as will people without any real injuries but doctors are by no means stupid and can easily fathom which patient is being serious and which patient isn't.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 10/31/05 03:49 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

Well Grace I'll have to concur with you there. Lately I've noticed a decline in the "quality" of people who administer healthcare. Say you get apendicitis, but you don't know what it is and you go to get it checked, I've heard on several occasions, idiotic people in the medical industry say that "it's nothing" or even "it's all in your head" when it can end up killing you if untreated, and that's in this country! Honestly, I sometimes wonder if the Ph.D hanging up in their office is even legit, or if it's just there to make the place look pretty.

[ReiperX]

I wouldn't mind seeing a free health care in the US. Allow privatised hospitals as well. That way the rich who dont want to wait in line, get to go to the privatized, and the poor who can't afford it can actually be seen by someone. I too have seen a lot of nurses and doctors who have no idea what they are doing. One of the reasons I think this is is that the colleges are now trying to pass everyone, not just the qualitified people now days. The training is what needs to be improved greatly. I still have problems with my knee and my hip, finally getting to go to the VA to get it checked out. I went to the hosptital on base numerous times and they gave me Motrin and sent me on my way. They barely looked at either problem, and assumed I was just trying to get out of PT. More than likely I'm gonna end up on partial dissabilty from this stuff that could have probally been easily treated when the problem arose 6 years ago.

Doctors are human they are going to make mistakes from time to time. Thats understandable, but without better training these mistakes are going to keep happening more often.

[RedSkunk]

Setting up a two tier system would lead to failure. Britian's system is half-ass because they didn't go the entire way. Socialized healthcare has been proven as the superior system, there is really not much debateable in that area. So basically the question is: should taxes be raised to provide better living conditions for the people? I say yes. Remember that most people would likely save money switching to a socialized healthcare system. The US spends by far the most amount per capita on healthcare. But we get the least of any post-industrial nation. Our current system is needlessly wasteful. I'm surprised that more conservatives don't see the need to switch. It would be much more efficent.

Forty-five million Americans without healthcare.

http://www.dghonline..l_hc_resolution.html

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 11/1/05 06:59 AM, R3DSK4NK wrote: Socialized healthcare has been proven as the superior system, there is really not much debateable in that area.

There's plenty if you look at facts not propoganda.

At 11/1/05 05:16 AM, ReiperX wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing a free health care in the US. Allow privatised hospitals as well. That way the rich who dont want to wait in line, get to go to the privatized, and the poor who can't afford it can actually be seen by someone.

So the rich that pay for there own health care would be exemt from the tax correct?

[RedSkunk]

At 11/1/05 12:09 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: There's plenty if you look at facts not propoganda.

Haha.

[TheDoctor]

At 10/31/05 01:11 AM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: That's unfortunate for your friend. but had there been free health care he would have been behind a stubbed toe a sliver in someones thumb a bruised knee a hypocondriac and 100 other useless visits, his chances may be slightly better, but he would have to be next to dead to get priority over anyone else.

Were he waiting at a hospital his symptoms could have been treated within minutes, it's fairly hard to miss a guy having a serious asthma attack in the waiting room.
If you're going to be ill, the best place to do it is in a hospital.

[Blackmagic]

At 11/1/05 12:09 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote:

At 11/1/05 06:59 AM, R3DSK4NK wrote: Socialized healthcare has been proven as the superior system, there is really not much debateable in that area.

There's plenty if you look at facts not propoganda.

Thats an amazing arguement. Yeah the facts!! The FACTS!!!...errr....they appear to be missing from your post.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 11/1/05 12:09 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: There's plenty if you look at facts not propoganda.

Such as?

So the rich that pay for there own health care would be exemt from the tax correct?

Nope. Why should they be exempt? Everyone has to pay taxes becuase here is a chanc ethey will go into a hospital that is stae funded.

HAve a car crash? They aren't going to take you to a private hospital as a lot of them don't have A and E wards. So if they don't take you ther ethat emans your going to be using a state funded hospital.

Would you rather be left in the street to die because you can't use a state hospital because you don't pay the tax? Or would you rather part with just a bit more of your pay check just in case?

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 10/30/05 08:55 PM, Allam wrote: To me it looks like he died cause the whole insurance bs is getting out of hand and hospitals are becoming more like lawyer driven corporate entities rather than real treatment facilities, and that's just sad, treatment shouldn't only be a luxury for rich people.

I can't speak for other hospitals, but the ones I've been in around Atlanta all have placards posted in the reception area that state that the hospital will provide emergency medical care, regardless of the ability to pay. Without knowing any more details, I would suggest that perhaps your friend was not victim of insurance regulations or lack thereof, but of an incompetent staff at the hospital that underestimated the problem.

[ReiperX]

I do agree with Illustrius <sp>, it was my assumption that a hospital cannot turn down emergency victims.

And Fetus, no they wouldn't be exempt from the tax. Would just allow them to have an alternative, they can still go to a government hospital as well though, as someone said with a car wreck. And especially if it is an actual emergency with an ambulance and everything involved, you're probally going to a government hospital, why, you may or may not be conscious and more than likely a state run one will be closer and better equipped to handle a trauma victim.

With my car accident, the price for the hospital visit was horirble. We spent 30 minutes in the hospital, my wife and I. They did a real quick check over and let us take a show to get the glass off of us. Together $666.40 for the visit. We didn't have healthcare since I was unemployed.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 11/1/05 03:13 PM, ReiperX wrote: Together $666.40 for the visit. We didn't have healthcare since I was unemployed.

Geez that sucks ass. That hospital must have been run by Satan... that explains the amount of your balance.

[ReiperX]

At 11/2/05 05:22 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 11/1/05 03:13 PM, ReiperX wrote: Together $666.40 for the visit. We didn't have healthcare since I was unemployed.

Geez that sucks ass. That hospital must have been run by Satan... that explains the amount of your balance.

333.20 per person, I thought it was humurous actually about the outcome of the hospital bill. But after they sent us to collections for paying too little each month and the collection agency screwed up by not even being allowed to take money themselves, we paid i think 350ish for the entire bill.

[RedSkunk]

For my surgery last June, they are making us pay the bill for the anesthesiologist. I forget the exact amount, but it's in the high hundreds. Apparently they thought I would either not need anything, or bring my own.

And we just got really good insurance too.

[ReiperX]

At 11/2/05 08:03 AM, R3DSK4NK wrote: For my surgery last June, they are making us pay the bill for the anesthesiologist. I forget the exact amount, but it's in the high hundreds. Apparently they thought I would either not need anything, or bring my own.

And we just got really good insurance too.

A lot of the right doesn't think that you should be able to get big surgeries with anesthesia unless you are rich or something. Didn't know that was a perk of being rich. I do love my insurance though, friend of mine has had two surgeries this year, gaul bladder and something else and cost her a total of I think 100 bucks.

[Allam]

Well he was denied treatment and died, he didn't have his insurance card and that's all the receptionist cared about, end of story.

Like I said, it's a boring topic, I lived in many countries, some with universal health care, and I can say from experience that it's a better system in most cases.

"Why should I pay for someone else's healthcare" is a pretty selfish thing to say, but that's encouraged in our society so no blame there, we didn't earn the "ugly american" moniker for nothing. It's all about the individual to the extreme.

[Allam]

Incompetent staff is possible too, but to the point of refusing treatment that's pretty bad.

[Allam]

Also it seems people seem to be under the impression that universal healthcare means there's no private heathcare for the rich people as well. you can have it both ways, check this out:

"
And lets face it, a UHS for the US couldn't be worse than the current situation. The US currently:

* Spends $752 more per patient on admin costs than Canada

* Spends more as a %age of GDP on healthcare than every other industrialised country (15%). Twice the dollar amount of the next highest, the Swiss. By contrast, Sweden, ranked #1 by the OECD and WHO spends less than 10%.

* Ranks only 23/30 in the most recent OECD assessment for life expectancy

* Ranks only 24/30 in the OECD survey for infant mortality, only beating those bastions of medical care, Poland, Mexico, Hungary, Turkey and the Slovak Republic. Sweden delivers premature babies at around the same rate as the US, but they're mortality rate is almost half.

* Again comes 24/30 when it comes to disease adjusted life expectancy (years lived free of disease). Again chasing ex-Soviet block countries and Mexico in a race to the bottom.

(source: http://arstechnica.c...ars/2005/10/25/1631

)

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 11/2/05 10:04 PM, Allam wrote: some good evidence

I agree that the healthcare system, as well as the Social Security system (but that's a whole other can of worms) of the U.S. needs to be looked into very carefully. I mean it's not like congress hasn't already looked into it, I know they've held several hearings on many issues, but how often do they put their words into action, and how often do these actions get turned into bills, and how often do those bills get passed by congress? It's like running a political gauntlet... but anyway lemme state my point.

You can't have a better healthcare system in the U.S. without raising taxes, it's as simple as that. By raising taxes for better healthcare, the government would have an enriched healthcare system, and because of the extra-revenue in taxes, at a level of high employment, the country would have a higher GDP and use a larger amount of its GDP for healthcare, even though the larger amount of GDP would be offset by the percentage of GDP used given that the country is at a full-employment level. If you research Okun's Law anywhere (online, in books) you'd realize that GDP grows or decreases by 2% for ever 1% of employment, respectively... Did anyone understand what I just said?

[Allam]

Yeah I see what you're saying, but I think this is an unproven theory considering the relative low cost of healthcare elsewhere. It's not as if covering everyone in the country is the only thing that changes in terms of healthcare dynamics. Think of the give and take.

Lets theorize:
- We could possibly have more patients and less emergency cases, since prevention is not expensive anymore so less people wait until things get out of hand and they're lying on an operation table or something. That can easily lower healthcare costs.
- With the focus being around healthcare instead of funds and expenses in public hospitals, the administrative costs of healthcare can significantly drop, saving hospitals millions if not billions every year. Also with that kind of focus, the quality of healthcare might actually improve - not in terms of professionals, but the end results of having less administrative complexity and more direct treatment with less ties to financial issues - so everyone could reap these indirect benefits of universal healthcare that places such as Sweden (number 1 in health care in the civilized world) and Canada.

This is all theory, other nations are doing great with it, and the rich people still travel around and pay for special treatment at private ones so they can skip waiting in line with the less wealthy.

Also, imho, the reason congress is not moving anywhere with healthcare is because they have to be careful not to step on too many toes or they lose the support of this or that lobby that's helping fund political campaigns. In a sense, the interests of the lobbies and special interests are what politicians are looking after, not the general public, realistically speaking. Sometimes the two interests don't go hand in hand, and the public is not as organized/coherent as a lobby with unified funds and agendas.

This would probably be the biggest obstacle to universla health care, insurance companies that make a killing off of the current system would never have it, that's for sure, but the public itself can be receptive to the idea (%75 figure quoted). In the end, politicians will do what's in their interests or get replaced by ones that are more in line with political forces' demands.

[CathaI]

Healthcare here is depleting here. The government keeps on slashing its budget, and now theres a shotage of hospital beds, and loads of people are stuck on trolleys.
Also, they recently got a new, hugely expensive, computer system that didn`t work and started overpaying or underpaying hospital staff.

[Butcher2k]

Government health care (or Socialized Medicine) has been in effect in Great Britain for a good number of years now. I don't know how they do it-but it works for them. DON'T FORGET THOUGH-they have a smaller overall population to care for.

Just join the military (I say w/ a smirk and a grin)-they pay you AND pay for total health coverage, life insurance(though it IS a little trickily worded), and a slew of other free stuff! All you have to do is sign up for a minimun of 2 yrs and get sent to foriegn contries to get shot at, possibly blown up, or get killed! WOW! Now THAT'S a great deal!

Yes, I'm a little bitter about this whole thing here.