Display MoreCan you expand on this theory?What do you consider "better healthcare"?
Access to doctors, drugs, cleaner hospitals, county medical free clinics.......what?
NOT having to pay for it, or waiting for 6 months to see a dentist? Or waiting 8-9 months to have surgery for a condition that will kill you in 6 weeks?
Letting the government decide if the expense to save your old ass is worth it?
Hell, even dumb ass California has realized free healthcare is not financially feasible or possible.
You really need to stop listening to the MSM about their wished "utopia" and start listening to the actual people that live in those countries.
They are saying they come to the US just to seek medical care because they can not get it in a reasonable time there.
Canadians come to the US, Australians come to the US, English come to the US.
IF there is no profit to companies that develop the drugs that make us better, why would they spend BILLIONS of dollars on development, testing, approval, jumping through the governments rabbit hole of never ending requirements, and then the greedy, blood sucking, spineless, weasel, useless lawyers (our Bill is excluded from this list of course) that want to sue because some dumbass took 2 pills instead of the stated one pill. Or the "patient" suffered an upset tummy that the accompanying paperwork said was a possible side affect but decided they would take the risk just to live, then want to sue them because they actually lived.
Then without profit, where would the money come from for the next life saving drug to be developed?
IF there is no profit in healthcare, how would hospitals spend BILLIONS of dollars on equipment, buildings, surgery centers? where would that money come from?
IF there is no profit for doctors, nurses, assistants, anesthesiologists and so forth, how would they pay for their 8 years of education and 4 years of residency? How would they pay for their housing, food, clothes? What about their liability insurance?
Are you willing to lose the ability to sue a hospital, doctor, nurse, anesthesiologist if someone you love dies so they can save money by not having to pay for liability insurance so you can pay less for healthcare?
Are you willing to pay 20-30-40% more in taxes so the government can give that money to drug companies with no requirements to repay? give it to hospitals, clinics, doctors, nurses, dentists and so forth just so you can go to the ER for a splinter because you think it is your RIGHT to free healthcare?
PLEASE show me where in the constitution it says you have the RIGHT to force people and companies to provide you free health care!!!!
There HAS to be profit in ANY business, or the business can not afford to get better, buy newer medicines, newer equipment.
I did not risk tens of thousands of dollars to start my business because i wanted to provide a product at cost. I have to make a profit so i can replace that product once it is sold with new product, better product, with better, newer testing. Why should i not be able to pay my rent just because i had an idea, put up my own money, took the risk of losing everything to just break even?
And WHO decides when i have enough money? Enough profit? Not enough profit? Is the government going to demand that YOU must buy my product so I can make the proper amount of profit?
So the next time you take a pill, think about all the dollars it cost that company to research, test, defend and make that pill, and ask yourself if living through today is worth $10 a pill, because the alternative is not cheaper, even cremation costs $1,000.
You have the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness, no one is stopping you, so pursue away.
BUT you do NOT have the right to take it from me, just as i don't have the right to take it from you.
Conservative Politics & Daily Events Discussion
-
@AllIn5450... I think you have some good talking points in here, but you also make reference to a lot of items I never said, so you are making me think that even if this struck up a good conversation, it would fall on deff ears as you are only going to want to hear what you want to hear an make up the rest. (Trump may be hiring for his Twitter team.) Sorry, don't want to be short about it, but yes, as of right now, unless you live in a shoe, everyone on both side of the political sides make reference to the world ranking of health care. There is a standard that all counties were scored on. The word "better" I think can be debated, but there is a ranking none the less. If you haven't read the entire report, I'd suggest it. You MUST take the politics out of things to make anything better. The whole doctors, drugs and "cleaner hospitals"... I'd like to have whatever you are smoking, but not sure where you got that. I'll have to go read the postings again, but I'm fairly sure I didn't say this... no? As far as waiting 8-9 months for things that will kill you in 6... you haven't been sick in the last 15 years... like REALLY sick, have you? I speak with utmost certainty that the insurance companies WILL kill you TODAY with the ACA and BEFORE the ACA, all while driving your rates up 10-15% more each year. The system didn't work before ACA, doesn't work with the ACA, and shore in hell isn't going to work after the current administration gets done playing politics with it all. I also pay 20% of my entire salary NOW for medical. If you pay less, you are either taking benefits that other people are paying for or you have company sponsored insurance which probably totals a good bit of what I'm speaking to. If it's none of those, then you don't have health insurance and when you get sick, the American tax payer will pay for it or it gets distributed across all Americans in fees because no matter what, it will be paid for even if you choose not to. I can address the good talking points you have if you wish, but we need to keep it factual and about what was stated. To borrow a phrase, it's just "Fake News" if we start making it up. Can I expand on this theory?... yes, I can, but it's not a theory, it's based on a report everyone uses. What do I consider "better healthcare"... one I can use and not bankrupt me or have them take my home because I used it. "Access.... what?"... yes in deed... what? where did this even come from? I did a search for "cleaner hospitals" in the posts and I only see yours... please do tell.
-
.
You stated:
Some 3rd world countries have better healthcare than us.
And:
it's not a theory, it's based on a report everyone uses
So as someone fairly well traveled in the less fortunate areas of the world and as previously requested please either post or link to the source you quote because I must not be included in "everyone".....Without the source material and knowing how they base their findings there is no way to have an intelligent discussion or understand the claim which is in stark contrast to my first hand experiences .....
As you also stated:
You MUST take the politics out of things to make anything better.
So please provide us the resource to do so .....
.......
.
-
I'll see if I can find it again. I think it's done by the W.H.O., but have to look it up. You do need to go to the source as most sites and reports site this one, but usually twist it in a way that make a point. I was surprised at some of the countries on it. I'm NOT well traveled and only have reports, but do have friends in the UK, Canada, and Ireland. Seems like there are Canadians that hate their medical that the republican party bring out and say "see"... but everyone I know that live around Toronto all like it. I am NOT saying everyone likes it... I'm saying the people I know all like it. They all say if you don't like that you have to wait for a test or service, they just pay a bit more and get right in. I've also herd about people being sent home to "die" in Ireland, but then when you look into it and ask if they have the recommended secondary insurance, they don't. There is always going to be a personal responsibility involved and there will ALWAYS be someone that doesn't like it or someone it didn't help. Just a fact. Nothing is going to be 100%.
Update: I "think" this is it, but don't recognize it right off. I think there is a newer one as this is back at 2000... but has how they base their reporting. WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance
-
-
-
Display More
That article spells it out very clearly! Thank you @Orangeman
Sent from my iPad using Polaris Slingshot Forum mobile app
-
Just for discussion as this is the second time this has come up... can someone also point out where it says in the constitution where it says I need to pay for medical for other people? Can you also point out where it says I have a right to ANY medical insurance... or for that matter where it says how to breath and if it doesn't say how to breath, how do you know you need to do it?
What I do know is under the ACA, I'm paying a LOT of money for other people to have medical. I also know that before the ACA, I was paying a LOT of money for people that had NO insurance. So are you saying then we should just say fend for yourself? @Bill Martin... you stated the following:
"It ain’t doin nuthin but gettin worse - just got a letter today from Blue Cross/Blue Shield basically tellin me to grab my ankles they are going in deep in 2018 but don’t know how much yet. You cannot be without major medical because one catastrophic event could wipe you out financially. Even more so if all of your assets are paid for so they can come after you for being successful. Healthcare is a complete mess with no quick fix I can see."
So where do we go from there? I mean, it's not my constitutional obligation to do crap for you... why should I care... right?
-
Update: I "think" this is it, but don't recognize it right off. I think there is a newer one as this is back at 2000... but has how they base their reporting. WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance
I hope that's not the information "everyone" is using because most of the source material used to base a finding is over 20 years old ......It is also using abstract ideas without any way to accurately quantify as indisputable fact .....
One example of a main consideration :
"GOODNESS AND FAIRNESS:BOTH LEVEL AND DISTRIBUTION MATTER
A good health system, above all, contributes to good health. But it is not always satisfactoryto protect or improve the average health of the population, if at the same time inequalityworsens or remains high because the gain accrues disproportionately to those alreadyenjoying better health. The health system also has the responsibility to try to reduce inequalitiesby preferentially improving the health of the worse-off, wherever these inequalitiesare caused by conditions amenable to intervention. The objective of good health isreally twofold: the best attainable average level – goodness – and the smallest feasible differencesamong individuals and groups – fairness. A gain in either one of these, with no changein the other, constitutes an improvement, but the two may be in conflict. The logic is somewhatparallel to that concerning the distribution of income in a population. It is desirable toraise the average level, to reduce inequality, or both, and sometimes to judge the relativevalues of one and the other goal (with the difference that there is no argument for takinghealth away from anyone – health, unlike income or nonhuman assets, cannot be directlyredistributed)."So it predisposes that socialist health systems are "good" if they provide a system but lack in actual care as long as it raises the average ..... all others are not "fair".... so not good .....
Which I don't find surprising since the WHO is one of the most corrupt and wasteful branches of the United Nations ......
Gonna take me a few days to completely review the entire report, find the rankings, check some sources, and see if its been updated, but its goal (to me) seems to be apparent from jump .....
......
EDIT: Found the rankings ..... for 1997 they rank the US as 37 of 190 with Costa Rica, Dominica, and a few others who we send millions in health aid higher with France as #1....
.
-
Display More
Just for discussion as this is the second time this has come up... can someone also point out where it says in the constitution where it says I need to pay for medical for other people? Can you also point out where it says I have a right to ANY medical insurance... or for that matter where it says how to breath and if it doesn't say how to breath, how do you know you need to do it?
What I do know is under the ACA, I'm paying a LOT of money for other people to have medical. I also know that before the ACA, I was paying a LOT of money for people that had NO insurance. So are you saying then we should just say fend for yourself? @Bill Martin... you stated the following:
"It ain’t doin nuthin but gettin worse - just got a letter today from Blue Cross/Blue Shield basically tellin me to grab my ankles they are going in deep in 2018 but don’t know how much yet. You cannot be without major medical because one catastrophic event could wipe you out financially. Even more so if all of your assets are paid for so they can come after you for being successful. Healthcare is a complete mess with no quick fix I can see."
So where do we go from there? I mean, it's not my constitutional obligation to do crap for you... why should I care... right?
My point was - the way it was, is, and will be when it comes to healthcare you are gonna have to pay thru the nose for it. Helluva choice right - either squander a large portion of your assets to avoid being bankrupted in the event of a life threatening disease or choose to not have insurance and be bankrupted for sure.
-
I would also ask to see how much you are all spending on health insurance, but not sure everyone would be honest about it. I know that in 2010, before the ACA, my family was paying something in or around $10K / year with my employer paying about $11K / year, a total around $21K/year for medical. In 2016, as I was on the ACA, I paid out of pocket around $25K for the year for myself, wife and two kids. Not a huge increase in totals, but if you take 10% each year for 6 years, it's probably correct. Issue is, it was all on me now. Question is, if we keep adding 10% and at times, you are lucky to get a 5% increase in salary, at what point are you NOT able to have insurance and as Bill put it, you will have a "catastrophic event". So conservatives just want to keep going with this from what I've seen. are we really going to drive that much of a wedge between the "upper" class and basically get rid of the middle class? At what point does that have an impact on everyone as the driver for the economy just vanished? Explain that to me or maybe show me in the constitution where it says I'm not allowed to have medical. If you make it too expensive to afford, then it's not allowed, no? So what then? Only answer I can come up with is make sure I'm on the top in the upper class which I have no problems with mind you...
-
$698 per month the first $2000 is out of pocket before they pay anything. That's just for me, last cycle it was $627.
-
$698 per month the first $2000 is out of pocket before they pay anything. That's just for me, last cycle it was $627.
Thanks Red. That's about right... $698 + wife at $698, then as the ACA doesn't have "family" medical, you are paying per kid (or at least in NY you are...), so that's another $698 for both kids as the kids were half I believe.... so that's $2094 per month = $25,128/ year... that is WITHOUT deductible, so add the $2K... or $5K for what they call "family"... so now we are at $30,128 / year. But most families can afford that... shu....
-
It would be cheaper if it didn't have things I don't need like maternity care. But I'm forced to pay more to pay for other people's free coverage.
-
It would be cheaper if it didn't have things I don't need like maternity care. But I'm forced to pay more to pay for other people's free coverage.
Hey, I'm not saying anything about that. You're 100% correct. It all has to balance out somehow and the system IS BROKE. But what do we do, just go back to before the ACA and keep paying our 10-15% more each year or do we just scrap it all and just say F' it? I'm not saying a blanket medical is for us even, I'm saying what we have now doesn't work and it needs to change and the ONLY thing I see thus far is a blanket medical that is NOT privatized as then you just have 10-15% more each year... how do you do that though? Government sponsored is only thing I know of. Someone please come up with an alternative so I can shut up LOL. I don't have the answers, but what I do know is that @Bill Martin is 100% right that it's screwed up and needs to be fixed, but just throwing our arms up saying it's not in the constitution is stupid and 100% not a solution. My thing is not loosing my home and it's a very real situation where everything I've worked for can be just gone.
-
I have seen the report @SaltyClownNY and agree we need to look at it for guidance. The bigger issue is not all of the components are clear. (IMO) the WHO is a very liberal body and the report is skewed in that direction.
Second-the rankings don't take into account how the health care is funded. IMO that drives a lot of what/will be US healthcare in the future.Just
Thoughts -
Health care is and has always been "privatized". The only difference now is that the government makes you buy it and doesn't allow you to pick your coverage.
The ACA has not done anything it was promised to do. It just made the problems occur faster than free market. -
I have seen the report @SaltyClownNY and agree we need to look at it for guidance. The bigger issue is not all of the components are clear. (IMO) the WHO is a very liberal body and the report is skewed in that direction.
Second-the rankings don't take into account how the health care is funded. IMO that drives a lot of what/will be US healthcare in the future.Just
ThoughtsThere are a LOT of things that would need to get hashed out, but if you even pay 10% of your salary to medical, would you not pay 10% in taxes to help pay for it? I think what happens is you talk about increasing taxes and everyone freaks out... understandably. This is a complex issue and the solution will not be simple. If I had all the answers, I wouldn't be doing what I do for a living LOL.
-
I've received government health care at a military hospital, not a fan.
