Non-Americans : Please Discuss Your Healthcare

[Marlboro Man]

Funny how public opinion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't very popular yet we still do them. The popularity of a government's action while a concern is not the end all be all as to why politicians do things.

Funny how Obama promised to get us out of Iraq and that hasn't happened yet, either.

Funny how he also promised to invoke bipartisanship in Congress, and he hasn't done that yet.

Face it, the public is sick of Obama and the Democrats turning their backs on campaign promises they made while cramming a partisan, expensive bill down our throats.

Are children not free because they have to attend schools until a certain age?

Children don't have any legal rights. You have legal rights once you become an adult.

And adults are the ones who are going to be forced to buy into a system a majority does not want if this bill passes.

So you are equating a government law on something to putting a gun to someone's head? Is the government putting a gun to are head and removing all liberty when it makes speed limits, forces us to wear seat belts, or tons of other regulations they have? Once again this is not something new. Regulations such as this have existed for a long time.

To adhere to a speed limit, you have to drive your car at a certain speed. There's no extra cost to you.

To wear a seat belt, you have to attach a strip of cloth to your body. There's no extra cost to adhere to that law.

But now, with mandated health care, you're asking Americans to dump money into public health care. Actually, you're not asking - you're forcing. You're forcing Americans to dump their own hard-earned money into a system to pay for other peoples' health care, and you're also forcing Americans to get health care they might not want.

These are two different levels of regulations.

Since when am I required to provide the very numbers which I am asking you for to prove the statement you said?

Based on what statistically? Either provide the stats or don't. But don't sit here making unfounded statements and not expect to be called on it.

It's basic logic. I'm sorry if you can't see that out of 40 million uninsured, it is extremely likely that millions out of that number choose not to have health insurance.

But since you seem incapable of looking at a number and breaking it down logically:


This link says that 9.1 million Americans, who make over $75k a year, choose not have health insurance

In terms of your question yes it does. Once again why would someone want to pay for health insurance out of their own pocket when they could afford a private insurance plan?

This is your problem: You think everyone wants health insurance.

Except people choose not to have it. I don't know the reason why people don't want it. They just don't. 9.1 million Americans apparently don't.

So I want to know: Why does it matter if they don't want health insurance?

What should matter is the fact that millions of people choose not to have it.

It does matter if you are presenting an unrealistic scenario. You sit here and say that the government is removing a choice. I want to know how many people are making the choice you are claiming they are taking away and why they are doing so? Because if the majority of people are uninsured because they cannot afford it then your argument that they are forcing people who are making some sort of "choice" goes out the window.

Millions of people choose not to have health insurance, and they can afford it.

So now the government is planning on forcing a demographic of people whose numbers total the population of the state of Georgia into having a service they don't want to have. People who can fully afford to have health insurance but choose not to have it anyway.

So what gives the government the right to force free-thinking adults to buy into a market it has already decided not to buy into?

 

[Kurosawa]

Ummm...I'm pretty sure people who make over 75K are not who this measure would be aimed at helping. And as for the service being there for people who don't want it, there are lots of government services that people never use.

This isn't happening anyway since the GOP and the blue dogs are the insurance companies *****es.

 

[Marlboro Man]

Except this measure forces every single American to have health insurance so its still a relevant figure in the context of the debate

 

[Kurosawa]

Except this measure forces every single American to have health insurance so its still a relevant figure in the context of the debate

Every American is forced to have lots of government services that they wouldn't pay for themselves because they're cheap.

If it improves the nation as a whole then it's worth doing.

Don't worry, the big insurance lobbyists have killed this program anyway. Healthcare can continue on as a pure profit, mercenary business where the wealthiest get to live and the poorest can **** off just as it has been.

 

[Marlboro Man]

Every American is forced to have lots of government services that they wouldn't pay for themselves because they're cheap.

If it improves the nation as a whole then it's worth doing.

Don't worry, the big insurance lobbyists have killed this program anyway. Healthcare can continue on as a pure profit, mercenary business where the wealthiest get to live and the poorest can **** off just as it has been.

It's not going to be cheap.

It's a trillion dollar program that's not going to pay for itself. It's either going to force the government to raise taxes now, or else it's going to force the government to raise taxes later once our deficit balloons.

Moreover, the government shouldn't force citizens to have health care.

Maybe the poor people should get jobs. Save money. Start picking up their own slack instead of expecting the government to hand them everything. Certainly that doesn't quantify every poor person, but plenty of them could get a job if they actually put some effort into it.

Maybe they should start making financial sacrifices, instead of expecting everyone else to do it for them.

 

[Kurosawa]

It's not going to be cheap.

It's a trillion dollar program that's not going to pay for itself. It's either going to force the government to raise taxes now, or else it's going to force the government to raise taxes later once our deficit balloons.

Moreover, the government shouldn't force citizens to have health care.

Maybe the poor people should get jobs. Save money. Start picking up their own slack instead of expecting the government to hand them everything. Certainly that doesn't quantify every poor person, but plenty of them could get a job if they actually put some effort into it.

Maybe they should start making financial sacrifices, instead of expecting everyone else to do it for them.

Maybe the poor have jobs but don't make enough to pay for health insurance because the prices are insanely high. I've worked for 20 years and can't afford it. Not all lower class people are crackhead bums expecting a handout and living on welfare.

But don't worry, this program isn't happening so they aren't going to raise your precious taxes, at least not for this. Maybe they will to give some more bailouts to rich pieces of **** who have never done a day of real work in their lives, but the insurance companies are making absolutely sure this doesn't happen.

 

[Bathead]

Is it at all posible we could get back on topic? I want to hear from non-Americans on their healthcare as it really is, not how American politicians with an agenda claim it is.

 

[sithgoblin]

I'm also an Australian and our healthcare system is reasonable. We have a government option called Medicare that you can join. Many family doctors will bill the government via Medicare when you go for a check up. You can be covered by Medicare and have private health insurance as well.

I am covered with Private Cover in addition to Medicare. I find personally Private Cover is more for surgery and more out of the ordinary problems.

But for getting a rash treated, typical family doctor stuff, Medicare is awesome. When you need surgery and the like, private cover lets you choose your own doctor etc, whereas public cover doesn't. But you still get treatment and I don't believe the waiting times are too bad.

For those who complain about having to pay more taxes to support other people: welcome to society. Go and be a hermit in the mountains if you like, but that's the price of living in a community. You may not drive but your taxes still go towards maintaining the roads. Your taxes are used for whatever the government deems is best for society. And Obama's government took this policy to the election, and won.

 

[DreamScape]

I hear about Americans going to Canada and Mexico for cheap drugs. But, I hear about Canadians coming down here for serious health care. The US is also at the forefront of medical advances. The US has the best quality and the best responsiveness of any other country. I don't think the 37th ranking of health care here is warranted.

We do have a large number of uninsured and that needs to change but it doesn't reflect the quality of health care here.

When a doctor is under a private system, he works harder and gives better care to his patients because of competition than those that work under universal healthcare.

Also...how does an American get Canadian health care when he has no card????

The U.S. has the highest quality healthcare in the world. This is continually proven by the fact that the people of over 90 countries around the world come to the U.S. for treatment of serious illness. Just stop in at the Mayo Clinic or Cancer Treatment Centers of America sometime and ask the foreign patients there where they'd rather be for treatment...

 

[04nbod]

Individual statistics are too specific to show a broad picture.

I disagree. There needs to be SOME form of competition there to keep all aspects working hard and to prevent people in highly skilled positions, like doctors, moving to a different field where their efforts are better rewarded.

In Britain the Labour government introduced League tables for public services like schools and hospitals. In the end they've not worked. Hospitals jump through the hoops even if that means they do just enough to get patients out the door. Competition means that hospitals work for themselves rather than their patients and go into the business of propaganda.

The cons are the case because your system is stretched too thin.

As I said, its a fine balance and needs constant tweaking.

'Stetched too thin' is too negative. It works, its adequate but it could be better.

The care, I assume, wouldn't be EXACTLY the same. But you everyone would have a decent standard of general care the same as here in Australia.

You may get your own room and better food, other than that yes its the same care. Its just a case of when you get it and where you get it.

Myself, I had major orthodontics done for nearly a decade on my teeth, went through the public sector, had the man widely regarded as the best orthodontist in the state working on me, he'd use me as a teaching aid and would routinely have younger orthodontists scoping out the happenings inside of my mouth and years later my teeth are far improved.

I couldn't imagine how deformed I'd look, or how out of pocket my family would be, if that were not available.

before my procedure I couldn't close my mouth without teeth protruding and my overbite was horrendous. I had a year and a half just bringing my bottom jaw forward.

 

[Hound55]

I'm also an Australian and our healthcare system is reasonable. We have a government option called Medicare that you can join. Many family doctors will bill the government via Medicare when you go for a check up. You can be covered by Medicare and have private health insurance as well.

I am covered with Private Cover in addition to Medicare. I find personally Private Cover is more for surgery and more out of the ordinary problems.

But for getting a rash treated, typical family doctor stuff, Medicare is awesome. When you need surgery and the like, private cover lets you choose your own doctor etc, whereas public cover doesn't. But you still get treatment and I don't believe the waiting times are too bad.

For those who complain about having to pay more taxes to support other people: welcome to society. Go and be a hermit in the mountains if you like, but that's the price of living in a community. You may not drive but your taxes still go towards maintaining the roads. Your taxes are used for whatever the government deems is best for society. And Obama's government took this policy to the election, and won.

Spot on.

If anything, Obama was leaning even further to the left when going into the election. This proposed idea is a more centerist one than he'd have been suggesting going into the election.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think when it comes to taxes, overall...Americans are full blown **** down ******ed on the issue of Taxes.

 

[Tally Man]

Funny how Obama promised to get us out of Iraq and that hasn't happened yet, either.

Funny how he also promised to invoke bipartisanship in Congress, and he hasn't done that yet.

Face it, the public is sick of Obama and the Democrats turning their backs on campaign promises they made while cramming a partisan, expensive bill down our throats.

Funny how Obama promised to get us out of Iraq according to a time table which is happening now.

Funny how he has given the Republicans input in the bill instead of completely leaving them out of the process all together and pushing the bill without them

But do please continue trying to say that Obama and Democrats aren't doing what they said they would when they clearly are.

Children don't have any legal rights. You have legal rights once you become an adult.

And adults are the ones who are going to be forced to buy into a system a majority does not want if this bill passes.

Whoa there buddy children absolutely have rights. However the parents do have a huge amount of say in what goes on with children. Once again you are completely wrong as to the legal nature of someone's rights. At this point I don't think you have any legs to stand on when rights are brought to the table.

To adhere to a speed limit, you have to drive your car at a certain speed. There's no extra cost to you.

There is if I'm forced to take more time going to work meaning I'm consuming more gas and putting in less hours to get paid.

To wear a seat belt, you have to attach a strip of cloth to your body. There's no extra cost to adhere to that law.

Actually said cost is one which is passed on to consumers through car companies which must pay money to install such government mandated devices and make sure they are up to standards. You seem to think a cost means just a bill when in reality a cost can be many things.

But now, with mandated health care, you're asking Americans to dump money into public health care. Actually, you're not asking - you're forcing. You're forcing Americans to dump their own hard-earned money into a system to pay for other peoples' health care, and you're also forcing Americans to get health care they might not want.

If the public school system is legal and follows the same sort of scenario where everybody is stuck paying for it even if we do not use it, then how can you say what the government wants to do with the health system removes freedom? We've had the public school system for a while now and we aren't the soviet union.

These are two different levels of regulations.

Nope once again you are wrong. There are no levels of regulations. There are laws which regulate certain things. There are standards which the legitimacy of laws can have applied to them but in the end a regulation legally compelling us to wear seat belts deals with the same issues.

It's basic logic. I'm sorry if you can't see that out of 40 million uninsured, it is extremely likely that millions out of that number choose not to have health insurance.

I'm sorry but saying that out of a population of X that a group of Y will exists does not actually give us Y and nor does it in anyway give us an accurate way of gauging that number. You provide sources to back up a number you don't say well there must be so much out of so and so.

But since you seem incapable of looking at a number and breaking it down logically:

This link says that 9.1 million Americans, who make over $75k a year, choose not have health insurance

This is your problem: You think everyone wants health insurance.

Except people choose not to have it. I don't know the reason why people don't want it. They just don't. 9.1 million Americans apparently don't.

So I want to know: Why does it matter if they don't want health insurance?

What should matter is the fact that millions of people choose not to have it.

Once again mislabeling my position. You attribute an awful lot to me that hasn't even been implied by my posts. I've never said I think everyone wants health insurance and I've flat out stated that there are those that do not. However I've questioned why they make said choice to better find out why they make such a decision to see how it affects the debate. For instance 40 percent of the uninsured are ages 18 to 34 according to the Census Bureau. So we have a group of young mostly healthy people who choose not to have health insurance because they may not want to put money towards that and are willing to risk having to move funds to health issues if they arise. This helps us understand the demographics that we deal with and lets us address this in health care debates.

Not only that you have over 30 million Americans who cannot afford health care even though they want it. This is quite a problem in terms of the health care system and shows that it needs to be dealt with so that the rising costs and issues of the health system can be resolved.

Millions of people choose not to have health insurance, and they can afford it.

So now the government is planning on forcing a demographic of people whose numbers total the population of the state of Georgia into having a service they don't want to have. People who can fully afford to have health insurance but choose not to have it anyway.

So what gives the government the right to force free-thinking adults to buy into a market it has already decided not to buy into?

Same right that lets the government compel children to school and makes us all pay for it. The government can compel people to do things based on certain specific reasons. This is not new and the fact that you seem to think the government is unable to regulate our lives in some way is frankly beyond naive.

Also do me a favor and respond to this post when you can stop strawmaning my positions. You've attributed numerous points of view and statements to me which I've never taken a position on or said. So frankly if you can't get these right its not worth discussing this with you anymore.