US Healthcare - not only most expensive, but also most error prone - Page 2 - Political Forum

Caltex · 03-05-2008, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzTeK

As lg11 mentioned, which I agree with, to state that "you don't need healthcare because your young" is fallacy. It is one of the reasons why I think that it's not an all too bad idea to mandate insurance, since as you just demonstrated, there are many people who think they don't need it and when they'r lying in the hospital after a car accident and get presented the bill for it they'll only pass out again.

Also, our healthcare insurance pays for much more than just "healthcare". If, for example, you are sick for a longer amount of time (I believe anything above one week eventhough I'm not sure), the insurance steps in and pays atleast a part of your wage so the company is not burdened with having to pay for someone that's not even working.

It's not a fallacy, it is gambling. One takes the risk that the bet will pay off and save money. If you're wrong you lose even more money.

I'm not a gambling man, and am not willing to take such a risk, but people should have every right to do so, its their health, their body, their money.

If health insurance costs $5,000, and the chances I will visit a hospital in the next year, multiplied by the possible cost is less than the money saved, it is very arguable that not having health insurance is a good gamble to make, and for most healthy young adults would probably pay off. Granted a few will lose their shirts, but that's how it goes when you gamble.

BloodPhart · 03-05-2008, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

Because for some reason people in the United States have a problem with being forced to pay for healthcare. Paying for school is okay, police is alright, firemen is good, roads and such get an a'okay but say "universal healthcare" and "OMG that's socialism!!!!"

For some reason many people don't understand (yet)... or maybe don't care since some people seem to consider themselves invincible... that the money they dish out for a healthcare tax could be pittance compared to the bill they get from the hospital if their (or their child's) appendix decides to burst one day (an average of $60,000.00). And it costs about $13,000.00 to have a child in a hospital nowadays in the United States. We'll go ahead and add that to the list of reasons why people are having less children. Because even giving birth will put you in the poor house.

So many things are wrong with this post.......

Health Care is not a legitimate function of the Government. Police and Firemen are. I don't believe we should be Forced to pay for the public school system if our children do not participate in it.(Maybe give our money back as a tax rebate, but that is another thread)For some reason some people don't understand the Constitution of the United States(and i don't think they really want to) And i don't consider myself invincible, that is why i have prepared for my medical expenses. Why should peoples choice not to have as many children be any of your concern?

The main reason people are against so called "Universal Health Care", is it forces individual citizens to give up their right to chose how to provide for their own well being. If you let the government into this aspect of your life, what is stopping them from telling you, "you need to loose 20lbs or your health care coverage will be canceled." It may be good for them, but it is not the governments place. And have you ever went to a VA hospital, or known someone who has dealt with them? That is what our health Care system will be like. And it sucks.Just wait til we have a higher Cancer Mortality rate. Germany, France, Canada and the UK all have higher Cancer mortality rates than the US.

AzTeK · 03-05-2008, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodPhart

Health Care is not a legitimate function of the Government. Police and Firemen are.

Can you show me the passage in the constitution where it says so? It grants the US government quite a bit legislative power, but I don't read anything about executive stuff that includes police. Certainly no Firemen though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodPhart

Just wait til we have a higher Cancer Mortality rate. Germany, France, Canada and the UK all have higher Cancer mortality rates than the US.

Germany, France, Canada and the UK ALL have a lower infant mortality rate than the US. What's the point with such a partial comparison?

Izzibeth · 03-05-2008, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

It's not a fallacy, it is gambling. One takes the risk that the bet will pay off and save money. If you're wrong you lose even more money.

I'm not a gambling man, and am not willing to take such a risk, but people should have every right to do so, its their health, their body, their money.

If health insurance costs $5,000, and the chances I will visit a hospital in the next year, multiplied by the possible cost is less than the money saved, it is very arguable that not having health insurance is a good gamble to make, and for most healthy young adults would probably pay off. Granted a few will lose their shirts, but that's how it goes when you gamble.

The problem isn't about those who WANT to opt out. The problem lies in those who are FORCED to opt out because they can't afford it.
Under Clinton's plan, everyone would be required to have health insurance. Under Obama the same is not so. If you WANT to opt out then go right ahead! However, those who do not want to shouldn't HAVE to because they don't have the money. That is what people are fighting for. I don't give a crap if you don't want health insurance. Good for you! But I do want it and if I was a waitress instead of an administrative assistant, I wouldn't be able to afford it and that is simply not right.

BloodPhart · 03-05-2008, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

The problem isn't about those who WANT to opt out. The problem lies in those who are FORCED to opt out because they can't afford it.
Under Clinton's plan, everyone would be required to have health insurance. Under Obama the same is not so. If you WANT to opt out then go right ahead! However, those who do not want to shouldn't HAVE to because they don't have the money. That is what people are fighting for. I don't give a crap if you don't want health insurance. Good for you! But I do want it and if I was a waitress instead of an administrative assistant, I wouldn't be able to afford it and that is simply not right.

That my dear, is socialism. No matter how productive you are, you get the same benefits. No need for ambition. Good luck with that.

BloodPhart · 03-05-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzTeK

Can you show me the passage in the constitution where it says so? It grants the US government quite a bit legislative power, but I don't read anything about executive stuff that includes police. Certainly no Firemen though.

police and Fire Departments are a local function. The 10th amendment:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people."[/quote]

Quote:

Germany, France, Canada and the UK ALL have a lower infant mortality rate than the US. What's the point with such a partial comparison?

No system is perfect. but i would have no problem with the states coming up with a plan. I could always move if i didn't like the way it was being done.

AzTeK · 03-05-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodPhart

police and Fire Departments are a local function. The 10th amendment:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people."

No system is perfect. but i would have no problem with the states coming up with a plan. I could always move if i didn't like the way it was being done.

You said healthcare is no legitimate function of the government, and you yourself prooved yourself wrong. It's up for interpretation if the FEDERAL government is allowed to mess with it, but there's certainly nothing stoppping state governments from taking the issue up. As stated in your constitution. Same as with the fire department and the police. In other words, the statement that police and firefighters are legitimate government functions while healthcare is not is wrong.

Izzibeth · 03-06-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodPhart

That my dear, is socialism. No matter how productive you are, you get the same benefits. No need for ambition. Good luck with that.

Ambition for health care? That's low.

And anyway, I am all for states providing the health care through taxes just as we pay for fire safety, police officers and public education. Why "safety from fires, protection by police officers, and basic education" are considered "basic rights" but your health is not... I will never understand. Why the general public fights against it makes even less sense since those who are in power get AWESOME health care and will actually sign bills and whatnot to prevent others from having any.

BloodPhart · 03-06-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzTeK

You said healthcare is no legitimate function of the government, and you yourself prooved yourself wrong. It's up for interpretation if the FEDERAL government is allowed to mess with it, but there's certainly nothing stoppping state governments from taking the issue up. As stated in your constitution. Same as with the fire department and the police. In other words, the statement that police and firefighters are legitimate government functions while healthcare is not is wrong.

your right i didn't make myself clear. I was referring to the Federal government.I have no problem with the states doing it, that is where most decisions should be made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzibeth

Ambition for health care? That's low.

And anyway, I am all for states providing the health care through taxes just as we pay for fire safety, police officers and public education. Why "safety from fires, protection by police officers, and basic education" are considered "basic rights" but your health is not... I will never understand. Why the general public fights against it makes even less sense since those who are in power get AWESOME health care and will actually sign bills and whatnot to prevent others from having any.

The entire world benefits from our free market healthcare. There is incentive to create better ways to perform surgeries, artificial organs, and did you hear there is a companies that is starting to grow bladders in a lab, built from your own cells(not embryonic stem cells). Im not sure if that would have happened if they didn't see a profit.
Only if the people want it. It should be put up for a referendum in the states.The "General Public" you refer to, do not want the government involved in there health care. the more the government controls your life the less freedom you have.

Grez · 03-08-2008, 01:48 AM

Universal healthcare is a bad idea for the US overall. Having our government control our healthcare and not giving people a choice will make things worse, not better. We will go further in debt then we already are. We can't even afford social security and Medicare is in even worse shape, and these are government programs. How the hell are we going to afford universal healthcare? Plus I don't want the government giving me my healthcare. If I need an operation I'll have to wait a year to get it, even if its a simple, routine one. We can get almost if not all insured (if they want to be) by other means.