Lefties shocked! Sign of the End? (page 2)

5go

What's annoying is that we HAVE insurance supposedly. We spent all day yesterday fighting issues with what should be a simple problem (Debbie's broken leg). I should be able to buy health insurance the same way I buy car insurance. Get what I need from the company that seems to be the best fit to me. And if they annoy me I can take my business elsewhere.

That the problem a lot of people in the USA are having and it is exclusive to the USA for the most part! We pay more than the rest of the world for healthcare and get less for it.

The problem with "free" stuff (health insurance, education, roads etc) is that people start treating them as if they have no value. From the point of view of the person acting this way they don't have any value - nothing has been personally invested in it. Some people will rise above that, a lot won't. I'm all for education, and we need to make it accessible, but I'm not going to pay for a bunch of loafers to take basket weaving or some such.

hillary_step

Jefft,

I may be about to reconsider my position on nationalized health care. If the *$#@*&%$ insurance companies are going to be as obnoxious as the government, what's the point of private industry?

Everybody grows up in the end. ;)

Nationalized Health care is not free. It is paid for in the taxes levied on citizens of a particular country, sometimes with subsidies from the Government in certain situations.

The reason that it tends to work in a far superior manner that the US Insured system is that it is a communal service which is available to all, regardless of their wealth or lack of it. It does not judge a person due to social position or way of life. The junkie and the aristocrat have available to them the same level of medical care should they chose the Nationalised Health route. As such it is imo the pinnacle of achievement for a civilized society.

No system is perfect, and health economies are always going to be delicate balance between resources and demand, but having lived under a number of National Health systems, and having experienced the opposite, imo the US has a lot to learn from other nations regarding care of its citizens.

Each year, tens of thousands of people in the US lose their homes, or are saddled with life-long crippling debts due to this system. One of the main causes of mortage foreclosures in the US is due to medical bills. (I bolded the word "one" for the sake of those who do not read posts carefully. ;) ) Such a scenario does not happen in the UK, Canada, many Scandinavian countries, France etc. (which is purported to have the best medical system in the world) etc. though we would need to exempt Germany from this list which has a system along the lines of the US.

HS

SixofNine

Quote:

I may be about to reconsider my position on nationalized health care. If the *$#@*&%$ insurance companies are going to be as obnoxious as the government, what's the point of private industry? At least governments can be overthrown.

Well, yeah, I'm shocked. And you have it exactly right. Why bitch and moan about corrupt, inefficient government, and then give virtual worship and reverence to corrupt, inefficient corporations?

At least government can be held somewhat accountable. And their money usage is relatively transparent. And we can make it more transparent.

Stop chanting "small government, small government, small government". At some point, it's just silly. We have a big country. You know who should have small government? Luxembourg.

Good government is all anyone can hope for, and work for.

Insurance works on the same monetary models as a Casino. Unfortunately, they aren't content even with that model, they instead "game" the system, looking to only sell to groups of people least likely to actually use their product, and looking to deny payment based, not on patient need, but on the insurance companies profit outlook. That, my friend, is not healthcare. It's not even honest gambling.

Profit and greed have no place in the human endevour of saving lives and alieviating suffering.

SixofNine

Quote FunkyDerek:

Jr college should be free to those willing to go.

By which you mean, it should be paid for by those who don't use it.

I think the idea, in those countries that facilitate this sort of thing, would be to encourage every citizen to be well educated. While there will of course be some, both rich and poor who will not take advantage (for very different reasons, of course) of the specific offering, even those fringe groups will benefit from a fit society as a whole.

Sunnygal41

Health care shouldn't be a conservative vs. liberal argument, it should be a human concern, a concern for a country suffering with a backward system.

exactly my sentiments.........and, having a backwards individual in office doesn't help.......and y'all can flame away, if you have to........my boyfriend has NO insurance, no paid vacations, no paid holidays, etc.......as the business he works for is very small and besides the owner is a penny pinching tight wad who doesn't even buy supplies for the guys to do their jobs properly........nevermind provide health insurance.

SixofNine

The problem with "free" stuff (health insurance, education, roads etc) is that people start treating them as if they have no value.

I don't see that with health care or education in the countries that facilitate those things for all citizens.

Now libraries, yeah, we Americans seem to not value them, if the amount we use libraries is any indicator.

hillary_step

Jeff,

What's annoying is that we HAVE insurance supposedly. We spent all day yesterday fighting issues with what should be a simple problem (Debbie's broken leg). I should be able to buy health insurance the same way I buy car insurance. Get what I need from the company that seems to be the best fit to me. And if they annoy me I can take my business elsewhere.

You should complete your sentence: "And if they annoy me I can take my business elsewhere if I can afford to do that".

HS

funkyderek

5go:

Never use that argument again please! It makes you look dumb.

Oh dear.

Why? I never once used my car insurance in the last three years by your argumant I should cancel it. I never once used my health insurance when I had it that means I shouldn't try to get more.

You really don't understand at all, do you? Can you see no difference between (a) insurance that you choose to pay for from any provider you wish that provides a service for you and which is guaranteed by contract and (b) insurance that you are forced to pay for, that provides a service for someone else regardless of whether they have contributed and which is provided subject to the whim of the sole insurance provider?

I should[n't] have to pay for the Interstate Hiway near your town either I will never use it either or that matter anything related to the US government short of the Hiways, US postal, EPA OSHA, NOAA, FCC, FAA, DOJ, and DOT.

(I'm assuming you meant shouldn't rather than should.)

Well, perhaps you shouldn't. What would be so terrible about paying only for the services that you use? It seems bizarre to force me - a pedestrian and cyclist - to pay for a road that I don't use and would rather didn't exist. Toll roads or a tax on fuel would be fairer than simply taxing everyone. Similarly, the postal service could be paid for by those who want to send letters and packages. Hmm, perhaps they could have some sort of adhesive token that must be bought and affixed to the envelope in order to have it delivered.

I don't need the military hell it's costing me money get rid of it. The DOJ can handle the terrorist like they should.

Now we come to something that really is the provenance of government - defence. The size of the defence budget and how it should be deployed are of course issues worthy of some debate - but that's a topic for a different thread.

JeffT

It is paid for in the taxes levied on citizens of a particular country, sometimes with subsidies from the Government in certain situations.

The government has no resources from which to pay subsidies execept those that it takes from its citizens. The first half of your statement is entirely correct on its own.

The reason that it tends to work in a far superior manner that the US Insured system is that it is a communal service which is available to all, regardless of their wealth or lack of it.

Not necessarily true. In at least some countries their are doctors and rich patients who choose to step outside the national plan. Guess where the best doctors tend to work.

Stop chanting "small government, small government, small government". At some point, it's just silly. We have a big country. You know who should have small government? Luxembourg.

I agree that the US government has to be "big" but it can be smaller that it is. I will argue that because we have a large diverse country issues need to be handled closer to the people i.e. the state or local governments rather than from DC.

"And if they annoy me I can take my business elsewhere if I can afford to do that".

I'm speaking about a service for which I'm already paying (the example being auto insurance). Obviously I have the money for it, since I'm buying it now. If I can't find a better service I can learn to live with the deal I have, or I can choose to spend a bit more to get the service I want. The point is, its in my hands.

Never use that argument again please! It makes you look dumb. Why? I never once used my car insurance in the last three years

Define "used" Don't know about where you are, but here having it is a legal requirment of driving a car. The fine for driving with no insurance is $475.00. You "use" your insurance every time you get behind the wheel.

Lefties shocked! Sign of the End?

Share this