U.S. Health Care Issues

[Gaidin]

I'll say it again J&M, this isn't about the 2 million(random, unfounded number) in California that don't have isurance or good coverage. It's about the 40 million in AMERICA that don't.

[Justice and Mercy]

I'll say it again J&M, this isn't about the 2 million(random, unfounded number) in California that don't have isurance or good coverage. It's about the 40 million in AMERICA that don't.

It's also about the Constitutional powers granted to Congress, and how running a national healthcare system isn't one.

Besides, it's better to have a few states ruining their healthcare rather than the whole country.

[justicar5]

It's also about the Constitutional powers granted to Congress, and how running a national healthcare system isn't one.

Besides, it's better to have a few states ruining their healthcare rather than the whole country.

Congress also doesn't have the right to raise an army for more than two years, don't here you complaining about that.

[Gaidin]

Congress also doesn't have the right to raise an army for more than two years, don't here you complaining about that.

He's not complaining about medicare or medicaid either.

[Justice and Mercy]

Congress also doesn't have the right to raise an army for more than two years, don't here you complaining about that.

Actually, they just have to re-appropriate the money every two years. During the drafting the debate was whether it should be one or two years, the decision was made that Congress having to re-appropriate the money every year was too often.

It's a check on the power of the Executive.

EDIT:

He's not complaining about medicare or medicaid either.

Oh, well clearly if I'm not complaining about it this moment it must not bother me.

[Disaray]

It's also about the Constitutional powers granted to Congress, and how running a national healthcare system isn't one.

Besides, it's better to have a few states ruining their healthcare rather than the whole country.

I disagree, in my opinion the government has a mandait to see tot he welfair of the people. Many, espcialy conservitives, see this as meaning millitary defence but what could be more seeing to the welfare of the people that insuring that they have equal accses to the best health care available and needed in this country?

Pheir, if this "socialisum" is going to "suck" so much how come every other industrialized nation on the face of the Earth has this kind of system? Why do all those nations that have such a system have a health care system better than ours? If you can adiquitly awsner those questions I will be impressed.

[justicar5]

I made it 80 pages before I got a headache, do I win a prize?

[Gaidin]

<hands justicar5 a shiny pin with the number 80 on it>

[justicar5]

<hands justicar5 a shiny pin with the number 80 on it>

why am I doing this to myself, I'm not even amaerican, anyway ONWARDS! (gets the beer and smokes) Do I really have this little to do with my time?

[chamaeleo]

60% of all US bankruptcies were due to health issues.

In 80% of those cases, the family HAD insurance.

Tell me there's nothing wrong with that.

They can't. My parents both work for the government. So my insurance will not be terminated

They don't need to. They'll just find a reason to refuse paying for treatment, tell you to go suck on it, until you find a lawyer who'll go to trial for slightly less than the amount you owe the hospital. Good luck, and all that...

[Dunecat]

Does the US Military receive government-run healthcare?

Sure it's a different type but they run it alright, right?

[justicar5]

Does the US Military receive government-run healthcare?

Sure it's a different type but they run it alright, right?

ironicall yso do the detainees in Gitmo

[Justice and Mercy]

Does the US Military receive government-run healthcare?

Yeah, and we're getting a good cost-benefit ratio from that, right?

[FuZe]

Yeah, and we're getting a good cost-benefit ratio from that, right?

What kind of cost-benefit ratio did you have in mind? Dollars spent over persons covered? This is not so easy to compare because VA health care ends up with the all the least insurable vets, who have nowhere else to turn. Now, if this service were expanded and covered all Americans (and not just the sickest), the negative-selection factor would be eliminated which would make the cost-benefit light-years better than it is now.

Private insurance companies can cherry pick who get health insurance, the VA cannot. The private insurance companies profit by this, at the expense of the VA. The two cannot be compared directly.

[Gaidin]

If you listen to glenn beck, non military hasn't earned the right to the coverage though.

[Dunecat]

If you listen to glenn beck, non military hasn't earned the right to the coverage though.

Well they're not under government employment in combat roles. They live and breath the consumer society. The healthcare provided is more narrow and localized. Still, that's not health insurance.

Can the health insurance proposed exclude people from coverage just like private insurance companies?

Is there not a market solution to this?

I don't really know the issue well.

[Disaray]

The VA health care veterans get is in fact a single payer "socialist" system payed for by the tax payer. The VA owns the hospitals and employs the doctors. Funny thing about it is that the vast majority of the people using the VA system think it is great and it is often touted as "the gold standard of American health care." All these conservitives would have you belive that the governmentcan't run anything right, let alone with any skill, but even they will say that the VA is a wonderful program. A very confusing bunch of people those conservitives.

[Gaidin]

Well they're not under government employment in combat roles. They live and breath the consumer society. The healthcare provided is more narrow and localized. Still, that's not health insurance.

Can the health insurance proposed exclude people from coverage just like private insurance companies?

Is there not a market solution to this?

I don't really know the issue well.

I got my name wrong...my bad. It was Bill Kristol.

Check it out.

[SorelusImperion]

Its a crappy standard and its socialism.

Sorry, its going to make our healthcare suck more.

It's demand and supply: The people demand public healthcare and the government is soon going to provide public healthcare.

[Ragabash]

Healthcare is a definite right in my opinion rather than a mere privilege. But as it's ideological difference and there is no absolute right or wrong on the matter, the real question is what moral and ethical standard people wish to hold, and what standards they wish to apply in the society they are living in; is healthcare just a privilege and another faceless market for those who have ability to acquire one from private providers, or is it social right that everyone, regardless of their social and economical backround should have access to.

In Europe healthcare is often viewed as a necessary service just as is national security, fire protection, worker's rights et cetra. It's not as important are these services provided by public or private sector, as long as they work as supposed and everyone has access to them. As private sector generally does not operate on impartial and ethical level it's often up to government to provide these services to the people -where private sector fails to do so.

There is nothing that indicates nationalised universal healthcare plan cannot work, in fact, the data we have tell the opposite most of the time; the quality and cost of healthcare is best in countries where nationalised healthcare has been implemented. That, unlike many people seem to understand do not necessary mean that there cannot be successful private sector; in many countries specialised healthcare services are bought from private sector but who just function inside the public healthcare plan.

The fact remains that Americans pay more for their healthcare that does not cover as many, and is not as quality as in other western countries. American tax payers already pay more than in any other country for healthcare that is of less quality. The main drive behind American healthcare reform is not to drive private sector away but rather reform it as part of the public coverage, make it more ethical (where insurance companies do not anymore dictate the terms) and give more for your money.