General Discussion Forum

Topic: Government run Health care! yes or no?

Showing 221 to 240 of 286

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Vendetta

221. Posted:

brooks83 wrote:

Zenman wrote:

@ vendetta
obama made this argument and i think it fits...
what about UPS and Fed-Ex Vs the Postal Service? by that logic there would be no UPS or Fed-Ex because the Postal Service is government run

He also said that it's the post office that's always having problems. That doesn't give me much confidence that the government could effectively run health care.

@Zenman: Mister Obama should learn a bit of corporate history before denigrating commerical icons of American industry. FEDERAL Express got its name by agreeing to deliver the paychecks to government workers in a timely fashion - something the US Post Office couldn't promise or deliver on. Secondly, the US Post Office runs at an operating defecit of approximately $10 MILLION per DAY. By any calculus, that is an abject failure.

Edited on by Vendetta

Ex cineribus resurgo
Wii / Speak / Music: 3991 9961 5576 0184 · · · · Mario Kart Wii: 3609 8999 1445· · · · · · · ·Alien Crush: 1934 4006 9660
The Conduit: 2622 0458 3119· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Water Warfare: 4726 5832 1608· · · · · · · Onslaught: 0388 6842 8268

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Zenman

222. Posted:

kay, that 's fair, but the Postal Service doesn't have the massive lag today that people think GHC will have, i get my mail at a reasonable rate
EDIT: although that has NOTHING to do with this thread

Edited on by Zenman

my deviantART backloggery!
nL chatroom BETAness
my pwnage channel
check out my fanfic!
im not dead...just in college...aka worse
all hail lord veigar!

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Bankai

223. Posted:

By setting up the public option, it will eventually drive away private insurance companies.

Why would it? It doesn't here.

Secondly, the US Post Office runs at an operating defecit of approximately $10 MILLION per day. By any calculus, that is an abject failure.

Simplistic, and incorrect. Infrastructure is expensive, yes, but the intangible benefits that it provides contributes far more to an economy that cost.

For instance. At the very least Public companies employ workers - unemployment is one of the very worst indications of a poor economy, since it has follow-on impact into major areas such as retail.

Another example - In Australia the Government is building a FTTH network - the NBN. For $50 billion. Now, people have been complaining that this is expensive, but that's a stupidly simplistic look at it. That NBN network will enable better ways of doing business and improve the competitiveness of Australian businesses on the world stage. Does the Government get it's $50 billion investment back? No, but the contribution to the broader economy will be far greater.

Even simpler, look at roads. Those cost Governments around the world billions on billions a year. And with the exception of the odd toll road, don't generate any income directly. But you remove the roads from a city and watch its economy collapse.

This thread is filled with such simplistic thinking that I am embarrased on behalf of you all.

Digitally Downloaded - best darned game site on the web ;-)

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Zenman

224. Posted:

brooks83 wrote:

It's all a sham. Obama is making it to look like we have a choice and that we can still get private insurance if we choose. But Obama said in HIS OWN WORDS that it will take between 10-20 years to eliminate the private insurance companies and have a single payer system (universal healthcare). By setting up the public option, it will eventually drive away private insurance companies.

link your proof!

Edited on by Zenman

my deviantART backloggery!
nL chatroom BETAness
my pwnage channel
check out my fanfic!
im not dead...just in college...aka worse
all hail lord veigar!

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Vendetta

225. Posted:

It does though, Zenbro. Universal, US Government-run healthcare provides no incentive for providers to control costs or for patients to be cost-conscious and not abuse the system. This will in turn lead to increased costs. Increased costs lead to a shortfall in allocated funding, which in turn leads to higher taxes. This is the way it has always been with government programs. There is no rational reason to believe this will be any different.

Goodnight for now fellas. I'm gonna go walk the neighborhood on this beautiful New York night.

Stay cool.
-V

Ex cineribus resurgo
Wii / Speak / Music: 3991 9961 5576 0184 · · · · Mario Kart Wii: 3609 8999 1445· · · · · · · ·Alien Crush: 1934 4006 9660
The Conduit: 2622 0458 3119· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Water Warfare: 4726 5832 1608· · · · · · · Onslaught: 0388 6842 8268

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Bankai

226. Posted:

Vendetta wrote:

It does though, Zenbro. Universal, US Government-run healthcare provides no incentive for providers to control costs or for patients to be cost-conscious and not abuse the system. This will in turn lead to increased costs. Increased costs lead to a shortfall in allocated funding, which in turn leads to higher taxes. This is the way it has always been with government programs. There is no rational reason to believe this will be any different.

Goodnight for now fellas. I'm gonna go walk the neighborhood on this beautiful New York night.

Stay cool.
-V

And for the millionth time you are incorrect.

Digitally Downloaded - best darned game site on the web ;-)

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Vendetta

227. Posted:

Yeah because you say so... right. Get yourself educated and bring me some real challenges.

Nighty night!

Ex cineribus resurgo
Wii / Speak / Music: 3991 9961 5576 0184 · · · · Mario Kart Wii: 3609 8999 1445· · · · · · · ·Alien Crush: 1934 4006 9660
The Conduit: 2622 0458 3119· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Water Warfare: 4726 5832 1608· · · · · · · Onslaught: 0388 6842 8268

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Zenman

228. Posted:

Vendetta wrote:

It does though, Zenbro. Universal, US Government-run healthcare provides no incentive for providers to control costs or for patients to be cost-conscious and not abuse the system. This will in turn lead to increased costs. Increased costs lead to a shortfall in allocated funding, which in turn leads to higher taxes. This is the way it has always been with government programs. There is no rational reason to believe this will be any different.

Goodnight for now fellas. I'm gonna go walk the neighborhood on this beautiful New York night.

Stay cool.
-V

unfortunatley, i agree on the human factor, no one can judge whether or not people will abuse the system, people do it with other programs. but national health care in britain and otherwise doesn't seem to be a pit of high costs and terrible care; granted, taxes are higher in countries with a NHC plan, but no one is denied coverage, unlike here with our "best system in the world"

my deviantART backloggery!
nL chatroom BETAness
my pwnage channel
check out my fanfic!
im not dead...just in college...aka worse
all hail lord veigar!

AuthorMessage
Avatar

brooks83

229. Posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

Of course the white house is now calling this a vicious attack, but here is Obama saying he wants a single payer system, and that it could take 10-20 years to get there.

brooks83

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Knux

230. Posted:

My point is simple:do you guys want everything owned by Uncle Sam? I certainly do not, which is what appears to be happening What I meant by causing grief is that the private health care companies will be forced to either switch over or shut down, causing grief to people who possibly might not be able to afford it. An universal health care plan is not going to help the enconomy, it is just going to allow Uncle Sam to own every company and business. This might be my last post in this topic, I'm not going to debate when people will not even listen...

supersonic1990z@hushmail.com Twitter Wii FC: 4579-0293-6760-7162 [10:25] DarkwingLz: D**mit Knux, tell Sony to release Vita TV here >:[

3DS Friend Code: 4167-4499-6603 | Nintendo Network ID: Knux1990 | Twitter: Knux1990

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Zenman

231. Posted:

@ Supersonic
dude, no one is listening, exept maybe the fox, vendetta, and myself
EDIT:
not saying anything negative about anything else, BTW, i probably missed liek 10 other people, with 12 pages it is hard to keep track

Edited on by Zenman

my deviantART backloggery!
nL chatroom BETAness
my pwnage channel
check out my fanfic!
im not dead...just in college...aka worse
all hail lord veigar!

AuthorMessage
Avatar

brooks83

232. Posted:

Zenman did you watch that vid? That was the proof you asked me to link

brooks83

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Bankai

233. Posted:

Vendetta wrote:

Yeah because you say so... right. Get yourself educated and bring me some real challenges.

Nighty night!

I'd like to see what qualifications you have for some of the crap you've come out with. I work in the media - I know how this kind of thing works.

Furthermore I live in a country with a public health system, and everything you Americans are coming out with (THERES NO UNCLE SAM IN AUSTRALIA LOL) is ridiculous, and is very close to being hysteric.

Digitally Downloaded - best darned game site on the web ;-)

AuthorMessage
Avatar

The_Fox

234. Posted:

Vendetta wrote:

The+Fox wrote:

Vendetta wrote:

@MERG: "Private industry is the cause of more expensive and worse healthcare." Why, because you say so? Please provide one example of private industry increasing costs and decreasing quality in ANY market. Let me save you the trouble: you can't.

The system needs improving, I agree. Please see my earlier posts for my suggestions on where to begin.

Regarding the number of uninsured, let's do the math, shall we? Everybody now...
~300M in the US
~250M with health insurance coverage
~50M uninsured

Of those ~50M...
~20M illegal aliens
~30M uninsured

Of those ~30M, let's assume 0.00% elective non-coverage, so that every one of those 30M want health care but can't afford it. That's 1 in 10. So........what, are we to overhaul the entire system at the cost of hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars for 10% of the population? Please. Wake the hell up.

I'm all for exception handling. Raise a bit more tax (if that's even necessary) to cover the outliers and special cases. Solve the actual probem. Don't make a crisis where there isn't one, then try and recreate the whole system using that crisis as an excuse.

And one more so you don't think I wanted to just look at one.
With your claim of 250,000,000 being insured, how many do you think have serviceable coverage? How many get their coverage through the job and are scewed if they get downsized? How many are stuck in dead end jobs because their insurance is tied to the job?

Fox, the 250M is not "my" claim, as you seek to represent it. Good tactic, but not accurate. That is the figure being used by the authorities on both sides of the argument. And being "stuck" in a dead-end job that puts food on the table and insures your family against medical costs is not really that dead-end, nor one you should feel stuck in. Surely any upgrade would offer comparable benefits?

Well, the figure actually shifts back and forth a bit depending on whom you ask. I don't know if getting an exact number is possible, but we can use 50 million for the sake of argument. There are ways the numbers are inflated of course, such as an example I'll use from when I was choosing which college to go to. All four I was debating amongst had in them fees for insurance that was mandatory unless you could prove coverage elsewhere. Combined, the total population of those 4 universities was around 57,000 all which would then be considered as having insurance. I guess maybe a third had outside insurance, so we'll take it 40,000 to make it easier. My point is, all of these plans covered more or less nothing useful, and yet they would get lumped into the figure.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

-President John Adams

Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Vendetta

235. Posted:

WaltzElf wrote:

I'd like to see what qualifications you have for some of the crap you've come out with.

Examples please?

WaltzElf wrote:

I work in the media - I know how this kind of thing works.

Never mind... say no more. (If only...)

Ex cineribus resurgo
Wii / Speak / Music: 3991 9961 5576 0184 · · · · Mario Kart Wii: 3609 8999 1445· · · · · · · ·Alien Crush: 1934 4006 9660
The Conduit: 2622 0458 3119· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Water Warfare: 4726 5832 1608· · · · · · · Onslaught: 0388 6842 8268

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Vendetta

236. Posted:

The Fox wrote:

Well, the figure actually shifts back and forth a bit depending on whom you ask. I don't know if getting an exact number is possible, but we can use 50 million for the sake of argument. There are ways the numbers are inflated of course, such as an example I'll use from when I was choosing which college to go to. All four I was debating amongst had in them fees for insurance that was mandatory unless you could prove coverage elsewhere. Combined, the total population of those 4 universities was around 57,000 all which would then be considered as having insurance. I guess maybe a third had outside insurance, so we'll take it 40,000 to make it easier. My point is, all of these plans covered more or less nothing useful, and yet they would get lumped into the figure.

Fox, we (and a few others) are in violent agreement insofar as desiring affordable, available, and high-quality health care for all citizens. It is a good and noble goal. We simply disagree on the means to that end.
Berating those here opposing US Government-run healthcare as heartless or cold is a baseless accusation being used by some to advance their preferences. But I've seen no one here - if there are, I've missed them - saying they prefer for some to not have health care, to suffer needlessly, to "die in the street" so to speak.
So given that as our common ground, the only points for debate really come down to cost and delivery logistics. These are areas where the private sector has succeeded in terms of quality and value by pruning the losers in a capitalistic market (before the days of government bailouts). Unfortunately, these are the same areas where the government has proven itself inefficient, bloated, and beaurocratic beyond repair.
Given our shared humanitarian disposition, I feel I don't risk being called cold or heartless when I say that this discussion really does come down to business and not whether people should be cared for. And that is why I've kept my posts factual and focused primarily on those business aspects.

Edited on by Vendetta

Ex cineribus resurgo
Wii / Speak / Music: 3991 9961 5576 0184 · · · · Mario Kart Wii: 3609 8999 1445· · · · · · · ·Alien Crush: 1934 4006 9660
The Conduit: 2622 0458 3119· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Water Warfare: 4726 5832 1608· · · · · · · Onslaught: 0388 6842 8268

AuthorMessage
Avatar

The_Fox

237. Posted:

@vendetta
So, shall we say we're at an impasse here, then?
We could go on for pages in a back in forth arguing about the merits of free enterprise in the health care market and if free coverage really is a money pit, but I think we're both pretty set in our ways.

See, in a way these topics are my weakness. I know I shouldn't comment because it'll get me riled up, and yet it lures me in like a siren's song. The religion topic went the same way, as did the gun thread (although that last thread I should have known I was walking in with the unpopular opinion).

Do I feel the posters who disagree with me are heartless? No, of course not, but what they typed was another story. The only thing that really annoyed me is the spread of obvious misinformation (death squads/panels, that the elderly would be denied care, etc.)

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

-President John Adams

Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

AuthorMessage
Avatar

The_Fox

238. Posted:

WaltzElf wrote:

This thread is filled with such simplistic thinking that I am embarrased on behalf of you all.

WaltzElf, buddy, I think everyone expects a little fire breathing and butting heads going on in a topic like this, but I'd avoid a statement like that.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

-President John Adams

Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

AuthorMessage
Avatar

helry

239. Posted:

i think they are not doing so. they are not providing any facilities of this kind.

sword
samurai katana

AuthorMessage
Avatar

warioswoods

240. Posted:

Vendetta wrote:

Ciao Fox. The private industry competes on quality and price. They only ever increase the quality and/or lower the price to beat out other vendors. Airlines, PCs, electronics, automobiles, you name it. Healthcare insurance is no different. Being a profit-driven company is what keeps costs DOWN in a competitive market. If the US Government steps in the game, competition goes out the window. Private sector will compete with the government the way a cow competes with a butcher. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded. Lower the costs to helathcare providers by taking them out of the crosshairs of ambulance-chasing shysters, and the costs they pass on to the insurance companies to cover the patients will be reduced also.

I am all for exception handling, whether by allocated taxes or medical industry windfall taxes or other means, the roughly 1 in 10 people (very agressive estimate) who don't have health care insurance and can't legitimately afford it - keeping in mind this number will be even less when costs are reduced.

Strange that you position yourself as the defender of all things capitalist and competitive, yet you have such a unbelievably simplistic and naive view of competition in the health insurance business (in any business it's far more complicated and prone to problems than your description, but we'll leave that aside for now). One of the core problems here is the fact that your two opening sentences are absolutely false. It would be nice if health insurers simply competed on quality and price; unfortunately this is one of those "products" that simply does not compete on the same grounds as others.

When an insurance provider takes you on as a customer, it's essentially examining you and making a calculated wager as to how much you are likely to cost them; in order to be a profitable insurance company, their number one mission is to ensure that you do not end up costing them more than you pay them. To attain this goal, they do several things. First off, they exclude patients who have "preexisting conditions," or who in other words already have health conditions that indicate that they would end up costing the insurer a good bit of payout. Next, even if you are accepted, they run a risk analysis of your current characteristics (any that they can legally access -- age, background, profession, etc), and try to set a price (and deductible, etc) that is high enough so that you'll pay them more in the long run than you'll hopefully cost. Now from these first two tactics (excluding and careful price-setting to cover what you'll cost them), they will certainly get it wrong sometimes and have you cost them more than you paid in, but a successful insurance company is simply one that manages to beat the curve and predict your costs better than others.

The third way that health insurance providers ensure you don't cost them more than you pay--and this is the most problematic tactic of all--is that they obfuscate the insurance you are purchasing, so that it is very difficult to understand exactly what scenarios will and won't be covered, because there will be all manner of loopholes and hidden conditions that will allow the insurance company to avoid paying for expensive treatment right when you need it. This is a much bigger problem for health insurance than for any other type of insurance, for the matters involved are extraordinarily complicated, and most consumers simply aren't prepared to read through and give a sound appraisal of all the fine print regarding how their insurance will respond to different scenarios, and the insurers depend upon this lack of transparency in order to profit from you. Coming just after the tremendous financial meltdown of last year, one should hopefully be aware of just how severe a problem obfuscation and lack of transparency can be, as that is precisely why all the mortgage-backed securities and other increasingly complex financial derivates distorted the market and eventually imploded: they, just like health insurance, reached a level of complexity and opacity that kills the proper connection between the consumer and the knowledge of exactly what it is that they are purchasing.

As for your final sentences in the quote above: even though you claimed a few posts above that you read all the preceding posts, you clearly didn't read my long post on page 10, or perhaps skimmed it a bit too quickly, for the fact is that you have causality somewhat backwards: costs are not likely to come down in the individual insurance market, or in health care in general, unless we can get those that are currently uninsured into the system. That's based on two larger arguments that I won't repeat here, but in summary: a larger risk pool means better prices across the board when it comes to insurance, which is a basic principle of how insurance works; second, the uninsured are already costing all of us a fortune and killing efficiency at hospitals across the country, as they get no preventative care and just show up to clog emergency rooms when their problems become too severe to ignore.

Twitter is a good place to throw your nonsense.
Wii FC: 8378 9716 1696 8633 || "How can mushrooms give you extra life? Get the green ones." -Lakitu 64
Join us in the epic Nintendo Life Wii Music Thread

Sorry, this topic has been locked.