apple0154
MEOW
Yep. Like the Interstate and National Parks. Just a bunch of bums going to the parks freeloading off others. What a shame.
Let's make it about Medicare
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Yep. Like the Interstate and National Parks. Just a bunch of bums going to the parks freeloading off others. What a shame.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Whenever I renew my car tabs, I contribute a little extra for WA State Parks. There's other occasions to do this, but car tabs are a regularly scheduled opportunity.
And that too. Get Johnson/North on the stage and we can see them make Romney/Ryan squirm on the realities of their budget busting plans in that area. Obama is going to continue doing his best Jack Bauer impression on those issues.
I certainly don't believe the Republicans have offered any serious solutions to the problems we face but at least they are not ignoring the issues with our retirement system. I know it makes the elderly feel insecure, but we have to put these issues on the table. If we continue to avoid these problems we will begin to see more and more political strife and guessing there will be violence against the elderly. Why wouldn't there be the elderly, are the wealthiest segment of our population and yet they are crushing their grandchildren with the burden of their care.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Of course, once the Kaboomers are in their 80's, violence against the elderly will at least be deserved...
(We're not being narcissistic; we're just trying to change the world!!)
(We're not being narcissistic; we're just trying to change the world!!)
Wheres that guy that was bothering me for proof? Link?
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Haha, I'm mostly kidding about that. 
It's not that simple. If you are sick you go to the Doctor and the Doctor helps you because??? Because he gets paid. Your vague claim is far too short of details.
apple0154
MEOW
That's it Apple, move the goal posts.
I never said government medical is free. It is a government service provided by taxes and it is the least expensive way to treat people and it delivers as good as or better results because illnesses are detected early before damage is done. Not all that complicated.
apple0154
MEOW
A simple solution is when the elderly die with a truckload of money tax the inheritance. 50% right off the top. After all, they aren't going to be needing it.
apple0154
MEOW
Of course, once the Kaboomers are in their 80's, violence against the elderly will at least be deserved...
(We're not being narcissistic; we're just trying to change the world!!)
They'll have to pry my little car from my cold, dead hands.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I'm sorry, I am not seeing the sweeping reform legislation from Libertarians, so I guess Libertarians haven't offered any serious solution either, eh? Why should I support them politically? They've accomplished less politically than anyone, even the radical liberals.
What's that? They don't have enough political power to make changes? Well, sorry... you don't seem to want to apply that thinking to Republicans, and it does not matter that Republicans haven't had the kind of majorities needed to make radical changes, you still hold them accountable... so we can do the same with Libertarians, right?
apple0154
MEOW
Here's all the links. There's lots more if you Google.
List of countries by life expectancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Health costs per capita: http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/7/5/saupload_f2.JPG
Health costs as a share of GDP: http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/7/5/saupload_f1.JPG
A few quick examples.
Cost per capita: 2007 ($US)
US: 7290
Canada: 3895
France: 3601
Australia: 3753
New Zealand: 2510
Cost per share of GDP: 2007 ($US)
US: 16.0
Canada 10.1
France: 11.0
Australia: 8.7
New Zealand: 9.2
Life Expectancy: 2005 – 2010 (Years - Planet Earth)
US: 78.2
Canada: 80.7
France: 80.7
Australia: 81.2
New Zealand: 80.2
Years plans implemented.
US: 2014??
Canada: 1966
France: 1974
Australia: 1975
New Zealand: 1938
35 years. 40 years. 75 years! Not bad for something that’s not supposed to work. And when we look at the different countries we see more joined during the 70s and 80s and even the 90s. The most telling is not one country reverted to a "pay or suffer" system and they all started out with one. It's incomprehensible there is even a debate about whether or not a government plan is better. The evidence, from every perspective, shows overwhelmingly that it is. The only debate that should be happening is the particulars of a government plan and knowing the nice guy Obama is I bet he'll be willing to open discussion during his second term IF the Repubs realize "to get along, you go along", otherwise, it will be the "hole" for them.
apple0154
MEOW
The doctor bills the insurance plan. It's like having a credit card. You hand the card to the doctor (receptionist) and she runs the card throguh the machine just like a CC. When the doctor is finished seeing you he writes what he did and the Receptionist sends the bill to the government. That's it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Stop spamming threads with your repeated bullshit, Apple. This has all been presented and refuted before.
1. Mortality rate does not automatically indicate state of health care.
2. Lower cost does not indicate something is BETTER!
No, that's not it. The bill still has to be paid, the doctor still has to be compensated for his time and talent, as well as the Receptionist and other employees. This costs a great deal of money that has to be paid by someone. The government doesn't have a source of earned income, people do. The government can't pay for anything, the people do. Now... let's take your stupid theory and apply it to the Banks! Why don't we have a system where the banks are just there to hand out money to whoever needs it, whenever they need it? We all put our money in the bank, all we earn and make, and then the bank just doles it out to whoever comes along and needs some money! Wouldn't that just be a wonderful system to have? Imagine, never having to need or want for anything ever again? You just drop by the bank, grab some cash and go enjoy life! The banks are happy, they are doing record-setting business, right?
The principles of why this will not work with the Bank, are the same principles which apply to "free" nationalized health care. It's NOT FREE! We have to pay for every single penny of it! The COST of doing this, will be unbearable in the end, because it's just too stupid in principle. Like the banks handing out "free" money!
1. Mortality rate does not automatically indicate state of health care.
2. Lower cost does not indicate something is BETTER!
No, that's not it. The bill still has to be paid, the doctor still has to be compensated for his time and talent, as well as the Receptionist and other employees. This costs a great deal of money that has to be paid by someone. The government doesn't have a source of earned income, people do. The government can't pay for anything, the people do. Now... let's take your stupid theory and apply it to the Banks! Why don't we have a system where the banks are just there to hand out money to whoever needs it, whenever they need it? We all put our money in the bank, all we earn and make, and then the bank just doles it out to whoever comes along and needs some money! Wouldn't that just be a wonderful system to have? Imagine, never having to need or want for anything ever again? You just drop by the bank, grab some cash and go enjoy life! The banks are happy, they are doing record-setting business, right?
The principles of why this will not work with the Bank, are the same principles which apply to "free" nationalized health care. It's NOT FREE! We have to pay for every single penny of it! The COST of doing this, will be unbearable in the end, because it's just too stupid in principle. Like the banks handing out "free" money!
Lowaicue
英語在香港
I hope the doctor helps because he has taken the hippocratic oath. If that is not his motivating force you are foolish to go to him for help.
So then there must be a beauracracy to determine who is entitled to a card and to ensure they are not abusing the system. Do you intend to give the card to all inhabitants, just legal residents, citizens? Those are qualifications and someone will have to verify them.
What happens if the doctor claims he did more and overbills the plan? What if I have a pain and demand that I need more than just some aspirin, get the doctor to write me a script and turn to selling those drugs on the street? What if I just demand more extensive care, because I don't believe the doctors are properly treating me? There a lot of hypochondriacs and a lot of doctors with crappy bedside manners who treat their patients like cattle, so you can't easily dismiss either side. Second opinions increase costs and to pretend the doctors won't circle the wagons and protect their own as they do now or as teachers do now, is just naive. Second opinions would mostly be rubber stamped without any actual review of the patient.
There absolutely will be a need for a bureaucracy and we absolutely will have to deny some claims. You can continue to live in your fantasy world, where everyone is just some compliant little drone that does what he is told instead of being the strategic animals they are who will constantly look for ways to game the system, but that will never be reality.
The "fixers" with their simple solutions NEVER consider the unintended consequences. Once the system is in place it becomes very costly to change and so most suffer under these misguided solutions silently. Or as TJ put it... "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
And Medicaid...both cost effective and work well. Watch the wingers start to claim they're going to save medicare...the new meme.