Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[piercehawkeye45]

That doesn't even make sense since most countries we are far behind in education and health care have more socialized education and health care than us. American education and health care is going to be fucked up whether it is free market or nationalized.

[Shawnee123]

I do. Messed up systems. But the way to change them is to...change them. I don't think staying with the status quo because we probably won't get it completely right, at first, is not an acceptable answer either.

I don't know what is the best route, but we can worry about it, and stagnate, or we can take steps to make things better.

The myth of government controlled health care is just nonsense.

What most Americans have, and will continue to have, and in some respects, see improved, at least in terms of coverage, is a system of privately administered health insurance w/ government regulation.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Pooka

Govenment is in charge of education and we are so far behind other countries it isn't even funny. Now translate that to healthcare... you see my point?

I would love to. But there is nothing in the healthcare bill even remotely approaching an equivalent to the public school system.

If the government did "take over" healthcare the way it "took over" education, that would be amazing. My home is within walking distance of several excellent public and private schools. Some takeover.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Pooka

First of all... why would you want the government to have such a hand in your health care. Think about it.

First of all ... we disagree. That doesn't mean that either of us are idiots.

I want the government to have a larger hand in healthcare because I don't trust big, profit-motivated business (health insurance, pharma, providers).

Originally Posted by Pooka

If the reason is to make it more available and more affordable for everyone... well... there is Medicaid

The problem is that many people make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private health insurance. If they get ill or injured, their are screwed.

Originally Posted by Pooka

, there is Medicare

Only if you're old

Originally Posted by Pooka

, and hospitals cannot deny you care if you go to an emergency room.

The most expensive and wasteful care that you can get

Originally Posted by Pooka

do you buy cigarettes, sodas, alcohol…

Don't mess with my alcohol...

Originally Posted by Pooka

I can tell you it won’t make it more accessible. We can look to California and Canada as examples of “why not”.

Most countries with nationalized healthcare are very happy with it.

Originally Posted by Pooka

You will wait longer for access.

I work in an ophthalmology office. There is a 5-6 month waiting list for cataract surgery.

Originally Posted by Pooka

Your taxes will be higher.

As high as your health insurance premiums + co-pays + medications? Probably not, considering that it would be spread over a larger, healthier base.

Originally Posted by Pooka

Obama doesn't like that Insurance companies increase premiums every year

Neither do I.

Originally Posted by Pooka

... well... the population ages and is increasingly becoming sicker (they raise the premiums to cover the risk… they actually run on a fairly small profit margin)...

I think insurance companies are very profitable.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

First of all ... we disagree. That doesn't mean that either of us are idiots.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't trust big, profit-motivated business (health insurance, pharma, providers).

You missed the biggest offender of them all...

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

You missed the biggest offender of them all...

Philadelphia Eagles management?

[classicman]

lol - see now thats funny.

Scary that they signed Avant and that other loser wideout in the last couple weeks.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I want the government to have a larger hand in healthcare because I don't trust big, profit-motivated business (health insurance, pharma, providers).

Then why support a bill that will not control the costs that insurance can charge in the form of co-pays and higher deductables? There are very few cost controls. Why support a bill that shifts more costs to taxpayers? Why support a bill that puts few controls on big Pharm for years?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I would love to. But there is nothing in the healthcare bill even remotely approaching an equivalent to the public school system.

If the government did "take over" healthcare the way it "took over" education, that would be amazing. My home is within walking distance of several excellent public and private schools. Some takeover.

If you don't think that "No Child Left-behind" or mandatory textbooks is government control you need to talk to your kids teachers. You have school aged kids right?

[Happy Monkey]

Don't worry; I'm not saying Bush improved things. Hopefully Obama's NCLB reform will help mitigate the damage.

[Shawnee123]

teehee

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Then why support a bill that will not control the costs that insurance can charge in the form of co-pays and higher deductables? There are very few cost controls. Why support a bill that shifts more costs to taxpayers? Why support a bill that puts few controls on big Pharm for years?

Because it's better than our current system. It certainly is not perfect. Maybe, like the civil rights laws in the early sixties, this will be a first step of many.

[TheMercenary]

The partisan split in Congress over health reform may reflect a broader divide among the public in attitudes toward the uninsured. Despite expert consensus over the harms suffered by the uninsured as a group, Americans disagree over whether the uninsured get the care they need and whether reform legislation providing universal coverage is necessary. We examined public perceptions of health care access and quality for the uninsured over time, and we found that Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to believe that the uninsured have difficulty gaining access to care. Senior citizens are less aware than others of the problems faced by the uninsured. Even among those Americans who perceive that the uninsured have poor access to care, Republicans are significantly less likely than Democrats to support reform. Thus, our findings indicate that even if political obstacles are overcome and health reform is enacted, future political support for ongoing financing to cover the uninsured could be uncertain.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...haff.2009.1019

[tw]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Philadelphia Eagles management?

Andy Reid refuses to practice socialism. Andy Reid refuses to let Obama save the Eagles. Clearly Limbaugh is right. The world is coming to an end!

Or maybe Andy Reid should learn how to adjust his play calls to adjust to changing conditions. Heavens forbid, says Pat Robertson. That is god's call whether the team lives or dies. Only god's will can determine Eagle's health. Thank god Republicans are there to filibuster those would subvert god's will. Only god should provide Eagles with necessary health care.

Only god can save the Eagles - an obvious conclusion.