Universal healthcare

[Lerxst]

Alright, I just watched "Sicko" and although i have no great love for Michael Moore (get off the Michigan thing already!) I can't argue any of the points brought up.

Why, for f*** sake, are we too ignorant, greedy and stupid to simply accept a health system like most of the developed world already has?? What are we afraid of? The poor people actually feeling healthy and happy enough to vote?

It's hard to digest exactly how moronic our system in this country (US) is when you see the real life accounts of, both US citizens and then our European, Canadian and even Cuban counterparts. Yep... Communist Cuba... or enemy of 50 years... Universal Healthcare. Talk about propaganda, seems our government even puts the Nazis to shame in that department!

The (conservative, no less) Canadian's response to paying his taxes into the system was great... to actually help his fellow people/neighbors?! When the f*** has a Conservative in the US ever, once used that and followed through with that as an agenda or a campaign?

Think about the amount you pay out of a paycheck towards medical insurance. Think about how much you still pay when you see the doctor. Think about how much isn't covered when you need a special procedure, or even something relatively simple like dental work.

Ok, so taxes suck, right? Yeah, you might want to reconsider that one as well:

U.K Taxes (Pounds):

Year to 5 April 2011 Tax Rate

 

[bickelz]

Ok, so taxes suck, right? Yeah, you might want to reconsider that one as well:


At the lower class end, you actually pay less in taxes in some of these countries. At the middle-class end, it's about comparable and only at the higher end is there a notable difference. But... (and this is a big but) your health insurance is included in those taxes. And by health insurance, I'm talking about mostly free coverage for just about everything you can walk into a doctor's office for and need treatment.

Taxes do suck and just because someone else pays more and doesn't whine doesn't mean we shouldn't complain. Taxes are a little bit of a different issue so I'm not going to veer off here. The biggest point is that the system still isn't free, everyone still pays for it through taxes.

Holy crap! Look at those impoverished Canadian, French and British doctors! How can they afford to live off of that meager $150,000 salary compared to our $230,000 ones?

You're asking people who went way in student debt to take an $80,000 pay cut. If it wasn't for the high salary, people wouldn't become doctors. As a result of the lower salary, less people will go to med school and thus there will be less doctors. Opportunity costs for going to doctoral programs are pretty high.

How the hell did the majority of people in this country get so stupid they'd ever think this type of healthcare plan wasn't a good idea? Even for the die-hard, Christian Republicans, what ever happened to doing unto others or being a Good Samaritan? What's the argument saying a slight increase in taxes for this type of coverage isn't doing just that. In fact, you can go as far as saying the Bible even supports Universal Healthcare and then the people who should be against it are the "Liberals", right?

Why are you making this about religion? This is a blatant straw-man. Talk about the issue at hand, not the types of people who support them.

And another thought I had, since everything is interconnected, think of what this would also mean for employers. Being unemployed, one of the key things I have to look for in benefits for jobs are the medical benefits. I've had to pass up jobs I would have otherwise loved to have, because the place was too small to afford health insurance. What if the employer didn't have to worry about that? What if the job seekers and employees didn't have to worry about that? Imagine how much free time the HR departments would have if they weren't keeping themselves busy with claims and benefits packages.

The "trickle down" effect of this wouldn't just stop at the hospital. Small businesses, non-profits and blue collar workers would all benefit in the long run. People could actually devote time to coming up with inventions, new ideas, art work, new businesses, etc. without the burden of health insurance, or the lack thereof.

Again, people will still have to pay for the service but there are a couple of problems with that. But in order to really explain them, you need to understand why we have high healthcare costs in this country.

Insurance is just a group of people pooling their money together so that, in the event of a tragedy, people have enough to cover the costs by taking money out of a pool. With health insurance, premium prices are determined by the average risk in the pool. due to the price system, healthier people will drop out of the pool because the price is too high (and thus opportunity costs) thereby raising the average risk in the pool. As the average risk goes up, the premiums also go up. This happens over and over again until you have few people insured and very high premiums. Familiar? It's called Adverse Selection is economics.

One of the ways to keep premiums low is to make everyone insured thereby lowering the average risk. Large companies often do this because they get better rates than if a single person were to go out into the market and buy insurance on their own. The Obama administration tried to tackle this by mandating everybody have health insurance. The problem is that since no buyers can exit the market, prices will just skyrocket. That solution will actually make the problem worse.

Now the problems with government providing universal care through taxes start with that same problem, they can just jack up prices and no one can exit the market. Although the risk may be spread out by covering everybody, you are forcing people to pay for something that they wouldn't be paying for had you not forced them to. First off, you are making those people do something they don't want to do and are enforcing it through force (what happens if you don't pay you're taxes? What happens if you refuse to go to jail? They make you go to jail by forcing you too). Secondly, the act of forcing someone to make an economic decision that they wouldn't do under normal market conditions implies that they are made worse off by the policy if we assume people act in their own rational self-interest at all times when making economics decisions.

So when you say "it'll free people up to...", it may free some people up but it will limit many other people as they will be forced to spend money when they would prefer to allocate it somewhere else in the economy. Of course, this means slowed economic growth since economies grow through trade that satisfies the Pareto Criterion.

The second problem is that it gets rid of the price system in healthcare and thus makes it an ass-ton harder to allocate resources where they're most needed. It also guarantees that more people will see the the doctor for things they normally wouldn't go for (colds...) since the price is "free". This paired with a pay cut for doctors will ensure longer waits than we already have as there will be less doctors and more patients.

 

[Lerxst]

Taxes do suck and just because someone else pays more and doesn't whine doesn't mean we shouldn't complain. Taxes are a little bit of a different issue so I'm not going to veer off here. The biggest point is that the system still isn't free, everyone still pays for it through taxes.



You're asking people who went way in student debt to take an $80,000 pay cut. If it wasn't for the high salary, people wouldn't become doctors. As a result of the lower salary, less people will go to med school and thus there will be less doctors. Opportunity costs for going to doctoral programs are pretty high.



Why are you making this about religion? This is a blatant straw-man. Talk about the issue at hand, not the types of people who support them.




Again, people will still have to pay for the service but there are a couple of problems with that. But in order to really explain them, you need to understand why we have high healthcare costs in this country.

Insurance is just a group of people pooling their money together so that, in the event of a tragedy, people have enough to cover the costs by taking money out of a pool. With health insurance, premium prices are determined by the average risk in the pool. due to the price system, healthier people will drop out of the pool because the price is too high (and thus opportunity costs) thereby raising the average risk in the pool. As the average risk goes up, the premiums also go up. This happens over and over again until you have few people insured and very high premiums. Familiar? It's called Adverse Selection is economics.

One of the ways to keep premiums low is to make everyone insured thereby lowering the average risk. Large companies often do this because they get better rates than if a single person were to go out into the market and buy insurance on their own. The Obama administration tried to tackle this by mandating everybody have health insurance. The problem is that since no buyers can exit the market, prices will just skyrocket. That solution will actually make the problem worse.

Now the problems with government providing universal care through taxes start with that same problem, they can just jack up prices and no one can exit the market. Although the risk may be spread out by covering everybody, you are forcing people to pay for something that they wouldn't be paying for had you not forced them to. First off, you are making those people do something they don't want to do and are enforcing it through force (what happens if you don't pay you're taxes? What happens if you refuse to go to jail? They make you go to jail by forcing you too). Secondly, the act of forcing someone to make an economic decision that they wouldn't do under normal market conditions implies that they are made worse off by the policy if we assume people act in their own rational self-interest at all times when making economics decisions.

So when you say "it'll free people up to...", it may free some people up but it will limit many other people as they will be forced to spend money when they would prefer to allocate it somewhere else in the economy. Of course, this means slowed economic growth since economies grow through trade that satisfies the Pareto Criterion.

The second problem is that it gets rid of the price system in healthcare and thus makes it an ass-ton harder to allocate resources where they're most needed. It also guarantees that more people will see the the doctor for things they normally wouldn't go for (colds...) since the price is "free". This paired with a pay cut for doctors will ensure longer waits than we already have as there will be less doctors and more patients.

You're 20 years old. God help you if you ever get diagnosed with a chronic illness, injured or have a disability. Once that denial letter comes from those benevolent group of people you say are pooling their money together for just such a cause, you'll be singing an entirely different tune. Trust me, that day will come. In our system, it's guaranteed.

The words, "I don't know" are a valid argument. It's safe to say them if you really don't know something. I've read your posts on the forum for a while and in nearly all of them that pertain to an anti-liberal argument, you bring up the "straw man". The straw man argument itself, is a straw man argument; it assumes the other side doesn't know what they're talking about. It's an easy response to fall back on when you see a fact you can't deny and don't agree with. It's easy to attack the other person and say they got it all wrong and then dismiss their entire argument as a fallacy. It saves you from having to actually show proof and back up anything with facts.

Now... I think I gave a pretty good spread of the facts in the initial post. I'd also say most of the non-US world would back those facts up, especially if you talk to those who have lived here and elsewhere in one of those systems. There are papers, tax returns, WHO studies, documentaries and dozens of documents available simply by going to Google. Nothing I'm saying about the Healthcare system can be debated - the salaries are comparable, the taxes are about the same the coverage is better, etc.

If you're really at a loss for an argument and want to bring up economic woes and pin that on a healthcare system, then you'd have a point... if the US simply went head-first into it. Our defense spending counts towards 19% of our budget. The UK's healthcare spending counts towards 18% of their budget. Take a wild guess at what their defense spending is... 6%. If we boosted our healthcare system up and fixed the mess we already have, we'd be in trouble, if we kept spending billions of dollars on defense. If we took that budget and put it in a universal healthcare system, then I'd be willing to bet no average citizen in this country would even notice a difference in their tax returns. It's called reallocation; the money's already being paid, we just spend it on the wrong things.

 

[Jill Hives]

It's called reallocation; the money's already being paid, we just spend it on the wrong things.

Yepyepyep. This a 1000 times over.

 

[GracieRuth]

I just detest Michael Moore. I watched a small part of one of his movies and I so wanted to barf that I walked out. Can you say propaganda? The stuff Goebbels did was better quality. I thought it was pretty funny how he was spoofed on Team America.
[video=youtube;R4fQNZmefM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4fQNZmefM4[/video]

 

[Lerxst]

I just detest Michael Moore. I watched a small part of one of his movies and I so wanted to barf that I walked out. Can you say propaganda? The stuff Goebbels did was better quality. I thought it was pretty funny how he was spoofed on Team America.
[video=youtube;R4fQNZmefM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4fQNZmefM4[/video]

OK, so you detest Michale Moore (but you didn't mention why). That still doesn't really contribute anything to the overall subject of the conversation here, does it? You have anything else to add other than not liking Michael Moore?

 

[54192&#cmy]

Why does government have to provide health care? If a lot of people want something they will pay for it. So why don't people create their own healthcare group? It would be better than the government doing it for you in my opinion. Now maybe I am wrong. I am of the mindset that I want to die. As soon as I can actually. And if I get cancer from smoking sweet! Or if I get colon cancer okay. I accept the life I am given. I find it interesting that people think that they are going to prevent their eventual departure from this world. A lot of money is spent in attempts to keep people alive that in the long run will die anyway. People need to realize that getting sick and dying is a part of life. I have kids. And they rarely need to go to the doctor. And when they do it only costs around 100 bucks at the most. The people who use the most dollars are the ones that usually do not have a chance at surviving. And if they do some how pull through most will never work again. So how will they pay for their insurance? At a certain point you will have a whole bunch of people who cannot pay for insurance. Then who's financial problem are they?

Look at social security. It's a great idea. Until you factor in all of the people it pays for that never worked a day in their life. Social security is in deep trouble. And now we want to let the government issue insurance? They cannot even balance the budget and keep our country out of debt. And we are going to trust them with health insurance? In order for insurance to work they need to make a profit. So the only way that the government can do that is to let people die. That way they save money. And then they can spend that money on others who need assistance. You will find that in time that the amount of money coming in will not be enough to cover the insurance. Then what? If the government can be in direct competition with business then why stop at health insurance. They can make cars tv's oil gasoline mine for gold the list goes on and on. If we are going to let the government into the private sector where will the new line be?

They can just step in and say that your business is not fair? And we are taking over? Don't the insurance companies have a right to do business in a free market? Government just reacts to and complicates the problems in the end. If you really want to make things better for Americans we need to fix the economy so people can afford to buy their own insurance. Every problem this nation faces is a cash problem. If the economy was doing better the prices would go down. The prices on everything would go down. Creating a system where people are dependent on the government is not going to make this nation any better. We need a better economy.

I find it interesting that if people disagree with this health care plan they are morons. Or Republicans. Or just want to see people die and suffer. Nothing could be further from the truth. I see these college educated types looking down on people calling them all sorts of names. It's sad really. Because I figure that if your educated you should know better than to do that. You cannot blame another person for not being able to go to school like you did. And to look down on them just shows that your education level is actually low. If you are smarter then why don't you understand that this world needs all types of people? Not every person wants to go to college. Some of us like our regular jobs. Your house was built by regular folks. Your i pod was built by regular folks. Most everything you own was made by regular people. They do the majority of the work in this country. There are millions of people everyday working jobs that college types want nothing to do with. And yet they talk poorly of these folks as they use what these people produce. Makes me wonder who the uneducated person really is.




​

 

[donkeybals]

I've seen bits and pieces of that one, pretty good. I'm a Michael Moore fan, I like his hats.

Anyway, my theory on the whole thing, is people aren't stupid. Just easily influenced by a higher authority. Instead of focusing on Kim Kardashian, and whether or not Snookie is pregnant, we should be focusing on real issues. All it is is a distraction, a fantasy land. I like the internet, freedom of speech. The higher authority, aka the US feds, actually tried censoring our voices, I think it was their plan with the SOPA/PIPA, given I'm all against copyright infringment, but the act would have given the feds the power they were actually after. Web censorship. The whole government is crooked, the election process is broken, the campaigns funded for nominees, are the greedy corporations. Short answer, boycott, and be vocal. Whining and bitching does little to anything though, action is required for change to happen.

Just my two centz.

 

[bickelz]

You're 20 years old. God help you if you ever get diagnosed with a chronic illness, injured or have a disability. Once that denial letter comes from those benevolent group of people you say are pooling their money together for just such a cause, you'll be singing an entirely different tune. Trust me, that day will come. In our system, it's guaranteed.

First off, it's not guaranteed that I will come down with something like that. Secondly, it's not guaranteed that I will be rejected. Although I agree our system doesn't really work well, it doesn't fail for everybody. I've gone to school with two kids who died of cancer...neither of them were denied care and the entire community got behind them. Just because government doesn't something, doesn't mean it won't get done.

It's safe to say them if you really don't know something.

I completely agree with you there. I don't think our current system is working, I don't think Obama's bill will fix anything nor do I think Universal Care is the answer.

I've read your posts on the forum for a while and in nearly all of them that pertain to an anti-liberal argument, you bring up the "straw man". The straw man argument itself, is a straw man argument; it assumes the other side doesn't know what they're talking about. It's an easy response to fall back on when you see a fact you can't deny and don't agree with. It's easy to attack the other person and say they got it all wrong and then dismiss their entire argument as a fallacy. It saves you from having to actually show proof and back up anything with facts.[/quote

You started attacking religious people and generalizing that all conservatives are religious and then started talking about the bible. It was completely irrelevant to the question at hand. I wasn't bringing up the straw man to discredit you, I brought it up because you were ranting about and irrelevant subject. I'm not a fan of religion but it has little to do with arguments for universal care.

Many of my arguments are "anti-liberal" because...I'm no longer a liberal. I'm a libertarian. Interestingly enough, I actually wrote a paper arguing for Universal Care my Junior year of high school. I actually used to be pretty much a socialist. If you look at my profile, it still says I want to subsistence farm for a living.

Now... I think I gave a pretty good spread of the facts in the initial post. I'd also say most of the non-US world would back those facts up, especially if you talk to those who have lived here and elsewhere in one of those systems. There are papers, tax returns, WHO studies, documentaries and dozens of documents available simply by going to Google. Nothing I'm saying about the Healthcare system can be debated - the salaries are comparable, the taxes are about the same the coverage is better, etc.

Well, for people who have money, they tend to choose private physicians. I'm not disputing the validity of the information you're presenting, I'm saying private doctors are better. I'm also saying that there are economic consequences to having government mess around in the healthcare system and you're neglecting those consequences.

As for coverage, there was actually a trans member on this forum that was complaining about how hard it was to get reassignment surgery in the UK. If you put government in control of healthcare and get rid of private doctors, you'll have to go through the government in order to make these types of services available. It's a long, expensive process. In a free market, you don't have that problem because it provides wants, not needs. If you're covering wants, you've gone beyond covering needs. It's about choice.

If you're really at a loss for an argument and want to bring up economic woes and pin that on a healthcare system, then you'd have a point... if the US simply went head-first into it. Our defense spending counts towards 19% of our budget. The UK's healthcare spending counts towards 18% of their budget. Take a wild guess at what their defense spending is... 6%. If we boosted our healthcare system up and fixed the mess we already have, we'd be in trouble, if we kept spending billions of dollars on defense. If we took that budget and put it in a universal healthcare system, then I'd be willing to bet no average citizen in this country would even notice a difference in their tax returns. It's called reallocation; the money's already being paid, we just spend it on the wrong things.

I'm not at a loss for an argument. Pinning economic woes solely on the healthcare system is simply incorrect. There are people who have gone into bankruptcy because of high costs of care but that doesn't happen to everybody. I totally agree we spend too much on defense but because we spend too much period. I don't even want a military to be perfectly honest. If you mean that government spend on the wrong things, I'd agree. But I say that individuals are the only ones that can spend their money with their benefit in mind. Government spends money on things because the free market is not providing it. The reason it's not provided through the free market is because it's not profitable (people don't buy it...i.e. they don't value it). So why do we think government fixes things? It takes money from people and then spends it on things they wouldn't, making them worse off.

It's great you're a bleeding heart liberal and want to help people, it's admirable. I used to be that way too but now I think there are so many problems that can stem from the solution you're proposing that can be explained with simple economics. "Re-allocating" government funds to me seems like the patrick star solution ("you just take it and put it over there"). Having free market incentives ensures there will be more innovation and greater variety. Saying that you're solution is the only solution and everybody else is stupid is fine...so long as it's not out loud. One of the things you're not considering by tying universal care to tax revenue is that tax revenue fluctuates with the economy so there will be either massive cuts to the system or hikes to taxes during recessions. And of course we saw these cuts a couple years back in Britain.

To be honest, I've struggled with the healthcare thing for a while as to what I actually think. It's easy to hear a testimony about how one person got screwed and then throw your support behind a social movement. My point is that it's not so simple and in the end, I want for people to make choices for themselves, not for a government to do it for them.

 

[GracieRuth]

OK, so you detest Michale Moore (but you didn't mention why). That still doesn't really contribute anything to the overall subject of the conversation here, does it? You have anything else to add other than not liking Michael Moore?

I thought I was pretty clear that his stuff is low quality propaganda, and not worthy of serious contemplation.

BTW, what is your source for those statistics? I make about $11K and I don't even BOTHER to file income tax since I'm considered in the poverty zone and don't owe anything. I do pay sales tax, but I'm quite certain it's not 15% of my income. I suspect that your figures are for the ADJUSTED salaries after all the deductions for kids, head of household, etc, which means the person making $8000 actually makes something like $28,000.

 

[Jill Hives]

I thought I was pretty clear that his stuff is low quality propaganda, and not worthy of serious contemplation.

So that's a no then.

 

[donkeybals]

I thought I was pretty clear that his stuff is low quality propaganda, and not worthy of serious contemplation.

BTW, what is your source for those statistics? I make about $11K and I don't even BOTHER to file income tax since I'm considered in the poverty zone and don't owe anything. I do pay sales tax, but I'm quite certain it's not 15% of my income. I suspect that your figures are for the ADJUSTED salaries after all the deductions for kids, head of household, etc, which means the person making $8000 actually makes something like $28,000.

Well, I think it's quite obvious, that you haven't been paying enough attention to how stylish his hats are. That alone should take you out of the barf level. XD

 

[54192&#cmy]

 

[manatee]

It's called Adverse Selection is economics.

Adverse selection is pretty sloppy as an a priori argument, it makes too many assumptions. The objection (that I'm sure you're familiar with) that healthy people tend to be more willing to buy insurance (healthy due to high income/risk-averse, both of which increase the probability of buying insurance) is definitely valid, yes? (Actually, the only assumption about how individuals act in economics I've seen that seems acceptable is the action axiom, but it has extraordinary explanatory power)

I would probably, coming from your position, first of all attack anti-market interventions (the *what's-it-called-again* that lets hospitals decide whether or not another hospital is allowed to open in the area, mandates on what insurance providers need to cover, separate rates for buying insur. through employer and as a private citizen, state borders working as monopolistic limits for insurers, bureaucracy costs etc), and possibly point out that the "compassionate" liberals want to force everyone to pay for healthcare and call those who oppose this greedy, instead of voluntarily providing their own money to charities (easy to be charitable with your neighbors' money etc). Giving links to reputable sources that demonstrate how much of the resources that private charities have actually go to the ones intended compared to government programs (about 70% go to the needy in charities, 70% to employees in gvt progs iirc) might work as an extra utilitarian prong to this argument (since people to a surprising degree think stuff like non-aggression isn't enough of a justification).

 

[bickelz]

Adverse selection is pretty sloppy as an a priori argument, it makes too many assumptions. The objection (that I'm sure you're familiar with) that healthy people tend to be more willing to buy insurance (healthy due to high income/risk-averse, both of which increase the probability of buying insurance) is definitely valid, yes? (Actually, the only assumption about how individuals act in economics I've seen that seems acceptable is the action axiom, but it has extraordinary explanatory power)

Yes, healthy people buy insurance if they visit the doctor but higher prices means people drop out of the pool...it's the law of demand.

 

[manatee]

Yes, healthy people buy insurance if they visit the doctor but higher prices means people drop out of the pool...it's the law of demand.

Okay, I'll admit that I'm not at 100% thinking ability right now (and not sure what you're talking about), but isn't the adverse selection argument that the people with the lowest risk in an insurance pool will drop out due to the price being too high for them, thereby increasing the risk and therefore price further, and so on until the market collapses? If that is the case, then it should be clear that the assumption that low-risk folks drop out is necessary for the argument and quite weak.

 

[AKM]

?

Think about the amount you pay out of a paycheck towards medical insurance. Think about how much you still pay when you see the doctor. Think about how much isn't covered when you need a special procedure, or even something relatively simple like dental work.

Ok, so taxes suck, right? Yeah, you might want to reconsider that one as well:


At the lower class end, you actually pay less in taxes in some of these countries. At the middle-class end, it's about comparable and only at the higher end is there a notable difference. But... (and this is a big but) your health insurance is included in those taxes. And by health insurance, I'm talking about mostly free coverage for just about everything you can walk into a doctor's office for and need treatment.
...Holy crap! Look at those impoverished Canadian, French and British doctors! How can they afford to live off of that meager $150,000 salary compared to our $230,000 ones?
.

I've gone back and forth on whether I want/need health insurance. I've added up what I've paid into insurance premiums for a year (when I was employed) plus what I paid out in copays and non-covered tests and procedures. It doesn't end up being a lot more out of pocket (if I'd paid cash as opposed to using insurance and copays) other than when something big happens, which is only every several years. On the other hand, only by having insurance was I able to figure out some of what's going on with my health, thereby letting me live a healthier lifestyle based on that knowledge (which now requires me spending less on medical care, since I'm intollerant to certain foods that were causing isssues, and that's an "easy" fix.)

$150K is a good salary. I would think people would want to be doctors to help people. The decent salary is just a bonus. A good friend of mine is a doctor (Internal medicine and emergency medicine) and he's wanted to be one since he was a kid. He's been working with migrant workers. He doesn't make much at all, and his student loans...well...they are there. Another friend (a chiropractor) can't afford to pay his student loans because he's an honest chiropractor and doesn't bully people into coming back constantly. He adjusts them and gives them tools to prevent their needing to return frequently. Of course the cost of college could be brought up as a factor in doctors NEEDING to make that much, but really, watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A75KERKwEQM for more on that.

First off, it's not guaranteed that I will come down with something like that. Secondly, it's not guaranteed that I will be rejected. Although I agree our system doesn't really work well, it doesn't fail for everybody. I've gone to school with two kids who died of cancer...neither of them were denied care and the entire community got behind them. Just because government doesn't something, doesn't mean it won't get done. ...To be honest, I've struggled with the healthcare thing for a while as to what I actually think. It's easy to hear a testimony about how one person got screwed and then throw your support behind a social movement. My point is that it's not so simple and in the end, I want for people to make choices for themselves, not for a government to do it for them.

Nothing in life is guaranteed, but there is a very high likelihood. I've been relatively healthy throughout my life, other than complications related to asthma, and a few dietary issues that manifested other symptoms. Prior to the dietary issues being diagnosed, one of the symptoms that was causing concern was irregularity in my menstrual cycle. Since some other hormone levels were a bit off as well (all symptoms of the dietary issues) they tested my "woman" hormones. The tests came back fine. We then, with further diagnostics (that my insurance did not cover because they were "alternative") we learned about the dietary issues. Since correcting my diet the hormone levels have balanced, my cycle is regular, and I feel great (as long as I don't eat or not eat things that I shouldn't/should.) After losing my job I applied for private insurance. Both my husband and I were DENIED based on "potential infertility." Apparently the testing of my hormones is part of a panel done when testing for infertility. It's not why I had the test done, it had nothing to do with my husband, the insurance wouldn't cover infertility treatment anyway, and yet we are both now considered "uninsurable." The Obama "everyone is insurable" insurance is insanely expensive, especially since we're both unemployed. We qualified for the Medicaid light "PCN" insurance, which only covers wellness checks. It's better than nothing in some ways, and at least we "technically" have insurance, but it doesn't cover anything.

My point - you never know what is going to make you uninsurable. A lung test might show that you've inhaled too much second hand smoke. Your great aunt Thelma had 3 miscarriages so you might be at risk for infertility. A guy you roomed with for 5 days at camp has AIDS...maybe you slept with him, we can't be sure. I pray you don't have to worry about any major illnesses, and that you aren't denied coverage. (Yes, I'm also Christian and believe in helping others.)

You're 20 years old. God help you if you ever get diagnosed with a chronic illness, injured or have a disability. Once that denial letter comes from those benevolent group of people you say are pooling their money together for just such a cause, you'll be singing an entirely different tune. Trust me, that day will come. In our system, it's guaranteed.

If you're really at a loss for an argument and want to bring up economic woes and pin that on a healthcare system, then you'd have a point... if the US simply went head-first into it. Our defense spending counts towards 19% of our budget. The UK's healthcare spending counts towards 18% of their budget. Take a wild guess at what their defense spending is... 6%. If we boosted our healthcare system up and fixed the mess we already have, we'd be in trouble, if we kept spending billions of dollars on defense. If we took that budget and put it in a universal healthcare system, then I'd be willing to bet no average citizen in this country would even notice a difference in their tax returns. It's called reallocation; the money's already being paid, we just spend it on the wrong things.

First point - yes. Sadly, yes.

Second point - I would MUCH rather have my taxes go towards HELPING people than KILLING people. Towards SAVING lives than putting them at risk.

I've also watched the movie, and one point I really don't get (whether we have universal healthcare or not) is why would the same medicine cost 5 cents (adjusted to US cost) in one country, and $120 in another?

 

[Lerxst]

Look at our government spending and look at the "Conservative" arguments against healthcare. The spending for our military is equal to what those other countries spend on their healthcare system. What it comes down to is that they (Conservatives) would rather force people to spend their money (tax dollars) on killing non-Americans overseas than force people to provide healthcare for their neighbors.

If you pay taxes, your money is being spent somewhere and you have almost no say over it. So, does it make more sense to have that money go towards developing weapons to kill massive amounts of people, or taking that exact same money, that's already being spent and providing free health coverage to everyone... yes, even you, your family, your neighbors, the super-rich and the super-poor.

This shouldn't even be a question that requires a second of thought: Kill people or save people - which is better?

 

[54192&#cmy]

So basically Democrats actually are for smaller government.Less government means more to spend on healthcare. If you spend less on the government programs there will be more to go around and help more people....​

 

[Saru Inc]

I have lots of stuff to say on this. But everytime I get into any of these damn arguments it just gets sucked into a mudslinging of epic proportions.

If anything I'd have to say to the 'stats' in the OP, 'stats' are stats. They're just numbers on a spreadsheet, if you think about it, not only are they easy to manipulate, but they're not very practical. Just in general.

Also, I'd like to note that not enough people look at the other side to see if their argument is valid. I was 'raised' republican. But lately I took a very good and long look at all of Obama's, and Clinton's policies, to see if a) they truly hold merit, and b) if they have given the rewards promised. I've decided against this. I am so greatly opposed to so many parts of this current Administration. Its destroyed the constitution. In the coming weeks, if the Supreme Court passes the HealthCare bill that most didn't read when they created it, America will no longer be free.

You can go ahead and call me asinine, prejudice, etc. It doesn't really matter. Take a snap shot of america 4 years ago. And look at it again in another 4 years if Obama is re-elected, and this system is go. The worst part of the 'great recession' won't be anything compared to whats to come.

And the last thing I want to do, is have to visit the DMV every time I need a RX refill. Good god, no. The government just sucks at running shit. It's not been very successful at anything it's done in this sector, so why try healthcare? Because the hippies of the 70s and 60s are all grown up now, and they're mad that the rest of the world doesn't like America