RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it?

RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

domiguy -> RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 3:52:35 PM)
What many people fail to realize is that we currently have a health care system that pretty much covers everyone. We currently allocate the majority of our dollars to treat the minority of people needing care. It's the way we work. It's rather stupid, shortsighted and will insure that we are not competitive globally for as long as we keep the current system in place. It's time to have a serious conversation about death panels. Seriously.

kalikshama -> RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 4:40:45 PM)
Ranking nations' healthcare: US isn't No. 1 Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as other countries, but it turns out that they're not getting twice the quality for the price when they go to the doctor or hospital.

tazzygirl -> RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 4:52:29 PM)
I agree, kalika. We arent getting the bang for our buck. But its not the service thats substandard. We have some of the best and brightest in the health care industry... many who have no control over costs.

erieangel -> RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 6:53:08 PM)
quote: The only way it'll work is through a "single payer" system. And, we can't continue to provide medical care to illegal aliens, that's just too expensive, not fair to our own people and just encourages more illegals. Canada does it? A co-worker was telling me one day about a vacation they had taken to Canada one year. Her son broke his glasses and when they went to get him a new pair, she thought she would have show insurance and pay the deductible and everything. Not so. The same frames and lenses she had paid nearly $200 after insurance cost her $27 in Manitoba. The receptionist told her that "if you are in this country, you get our health coverage". Period. No questions asked.

tweakabelle -> RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (1/16/2012 8:03:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: The only way it'll work is through a "single payer" system. And, we can't continue to provide medical care to illegal aliens, that's just too expensive, not fair to our own people and just encourages more illegals. Canada does it? A co-worker was telling me one day about a vacation they had taken to Canada one year. Her son broke his glasses and when they went to get him a new pair, she thought she would have show insurance and pay the deductible and everything. Not so. The same frames and lenses she had paid nearly $200 after insurance cost her $27 in Manitoba. The receptionist told her that "if you are in this country, you get our health coverage". Period. No questions asked. Not quite the same here but Australian Medicare covers every Australian citizen and permanent resident. I believe visitors are covered if their country of origin has a reciprocal arrangement with the Australian Govt (which most Western countries with Universal health care schemes have). So Universal healthcare (aka "socialised medicine") delivers 100% coverage for approx half the per capita cost of US healthcare - without any mention of death panels or similar ghastly nonsense. It also ends the silly political arguments about healthcare, medical bankruptcies, the stresses involved in worrying whether is covered or not, health care insurers refusing to pay for medical care ..... most of the problems that continually re-occur in this discussion. It's such a no-brainer I really don't understand why the US is still having this discussion - unless I consider the powerful role of vested interests.

Lucylastic -> RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (1/17/2012 1:53:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: The only way it'll work is through a "single payer" system. And, we can't continue to provide medical care to illegal aliens, that's just too expensive, not fair to our own people and just encourages more illegals. Canada does it? A co-worker was telling me one day about a vacation they had taken to Canada one year. Her son broke his glasses and when they went to get him a new pair, she thought she would have show insurance and pay the deductible and everything. Not so. The same frames and lenses she had paid nearly $200 after insurance cost her $27 in Manitoba. The receptionist told her that "if you are in this country, you get our health coverage". Period. No questions asked. That wouldnt work in Ontario, you have to have an insurance card to get any OHIP benefits, but every citizenincluding immigrants and refugees in the immigrations system gets a card for insurance. Here you have to show your healthcard for every doctors visit xray, blood test hospital visit etc, and to get glasses. I guess its like the states, each province has its own rules.

MrRodgers -> RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (1/17/2012 4:41:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail To assure access to basic medical care for all our people, we support a program financed by employers, employees and the Federal Government to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage, including insurance against the cost of long-term and catastrophic illnesses and accidents and renal failure which necessitates dialysis, at a cost which all Americans can afford. The National Health Insurance Partnership plan and the Family Health Insurance Plan proposed (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) meet these specifications. They would build on existing private health insurance systems, not destroy them. The only way it'll work is through a "single payer" system. And, we can't continue to provide medical care to illegal aliens, that's just too expensive, not fair to our own people and just encourages more illegals. They are handling it in most European nations with a private and govt. mix. What most are missing is that good ole'American greed. You know the place...where $200,000 to $300,000/yr....just isn't enough and MRI's costs 15 times here what they are in say...Japan. It is my understanding that countries with national health care have limited tort, wages and profits.

MrRodgers -> RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (1/17/2012 5:00:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy What many people fail to realize is that we currently have a health care system that pretty much covers everyone. We currently allocate the majority of our dollars to treat the minority of people needing care. It's the way we work. It's rather stupid, shortsighted and will insure that we are not competitive globally for as long as we keep the current system in place. It's time to have a serious conversation about death panels. Seriously. ...but for most of the poor in America, their only care...is in the emergency room, not before and care that might have prevented the emergency in the first place. Somebody else pays for it, insurance premiums or medicaid. Actually as for the so-called 'death panels', I much prefer we go back to the 'God committee' preference we are told...the proper 'free market' answer to the problem. Anybody remember those and why they were formed and their function ? Can anybody tell me what happened when that great free market committee...didn't select your name ?

Aswad -> RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (1/17/2012 7:36:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Single payer would also open job opportunities. Currently, workers who would otherwise retire early remain employed to keep health benefits. I can see this. Around these parts, retirement age is 67, and some retire as early as 57. Working beyond the retirmed age leads to penalty taxes. Most at least step down if they get a health problem that would be exacerbated by continuing to work full time, with the norm being to change jobs, at least among those who feel young enough to pick up a new skillset. Manual labor sees earlier retirement, while 'intellectual' jobs see later retirement, on average, which goes very well with both the industry needs and the needs of the next generation of laborers. In the privately owned offshore business, wages are higher and benefits better, and there's usually programs meant to adapt the work done to the life cycle of the worker so that both the company and the employee derive mutual benefit. Heck, they've tried hiring shiatsu massage professionals and chiropractors and the like to improve net profitability. In most fields, they have skill diversification programmes, sideways transfer options, promotion targetted programmes, anything that retains workers and keeps their performance high, for the value inherent in their experience and loyalty. They also subsidize some healthcare. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: National Healthcare: for it before they were against it? (1/17/2012 7:48:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 And, we can't continue to provide medical care to illegal aliens, that's just too expensive, not fair to our own people and just encourages more illegals. Why would you care? Just let the healthcare providers provide healthcare to anyone that's there. Once you have a decision making process, you have politics and beurocracy. That adds digits to the cost of anything. It's also rather wasteful to spend precious seconds of highly qualified and motivated people's time on figuring out whether someone meets an eventually complex set of criterion for coverage. Let them do their job, whatever tumbles through the door, and let the border patrols do theirs. Health, al-Aswad. ETD: Removed commercially viable idea.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125