Do you support universal healthcare?

rpe9p wrote: p0mt3 wrote: . Medicare IS much more efficient in it's spending than independent insurance providers, and it's overseen by the Government. This public option would simply be an expansion of that. I doubt that, do you have any articles you could point me to which prove that point?

I'll provide the articles that back what I say as soon as you post the articles that prove your arguments.

Epignosis wrote: So...this thread has turned into a classic "I'll show you mine if you show me yours," deal, has it?

as long as it stays away from 'mine is larger than yours'....


Edited by micky - September 03 2009 at 19:23

p0mt3 wrote: Okay, okay, I admit. I'm afraid to show mine . . .  . . . it may hurt some other people's feelings, that's all I'm saying.

after 40 years.......  you just get used to it

p0mt3 wrote: rpe9p wrote: p0mt3 wrote: . Medicare IS much more efficient in it's spending than independent insurance providers, and it's overseen by the Government. This public option would simply be an expansion of that. I doubt that, do you have any articles you could point me to which prove that point? I'll provide the articles that back what I say as soon as you post the articles that prove your arguments.

I havent stated things as fact, ive given my opinions.  If you are referring to the fact that I laughed at the idea of a bureaucracy being more efficient than the private sector, I can give you examples of the government's inefficiency.

I'm not going to just claim you are lying, if I knew more about the industry we could debate the causes of that, but frankly it would just be guessing on my part.  I find it hard to believe though that the government could take over health care and do a better job than companies that are competing with each other and trying to make a profit.

p0mt3 wrote: I agree with you that Government has been inefficient, but I don't think all aspects of socialized public services are evil or unnecessary. As I pointed out earlier, many services that we all take for granted and appreciate are Government-run, and no, while they don't always work completely perfect, it's still nice to have the option there.

Yeah I totally agree with you there, some government services are completely necessary, the question is where you draw the line.  Many republicans like myself believe that, most of the time, the government should only do something for people if its something they cant do for themselves.  In the case of health care people may not be able to take care of the problems with the health insurance industry by themselves, but a government takeover of health care is not necessary.

Raff wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Look, I truly can't say for sure that it will work, but I really, really, really think it will, if we would just take the leap. You shouldn't really be debating with me, anyway. Debate with somebody who lives in one of these other Countries who have socialized healthcare and ask them how it's working out for them. If they tell you it's miserable, and they wish they had the same system as we do, I'll resign my position in this. But you and both know people in other European countries are in love with their healthcare services. Don't we? Well, I've been trying to make myself heard, but no one seems to have taken any notice yet.... I'll just tell you one thing: my brother has never been a left-winger (unlike me), but a few days before I moved here he told me he didn't understand how a country that calls itself civilised cannot have universal healthcare. In Europe people like to complain about everything, but I can guarantee that NO ONE would choose the US healthcare system in a million years. Those who can afford it, if they want, can take up additional insurance, but many don't, and are perfectly happy with the level of care received in public structures. In Italy you can go 'half-private' in public hospitals, and pay for private rooms (as my mother did when she fell sick), but the price is a fraction of what would be here in the US.

I know people are happy with their health care in Europe and I probably would like what I was getting if we had it here in the US too.  The thing is though that I dont base my political beliefs on what I would like to have or what would most benefit me, I try to think about the fundamental roles of government and what is fairest.

off on a tangent.... but I am the curious sort.... I might be ignored...  but I would be at the risk of an interesting tangent...


I am curious just how much personal experience do you all have...that seem to have such a high degree of interest.. and presumably knowledge on the subject


quick show of hands..err... posts..... how many here have insurance under our current system... if you don't.. why....


how many have had to use it. ... for what.... and were you.. as a CUSTOMER.. satisfied.

I'll start....

I ...as one who had employer provided insurance.. wasn't satisfied when my ex-wife got a infection that went septic... and she was in ICU for a week after she nearly died (after being misdiagnosed I might add).   At the end .. we were presented a bill for THOUSANDS of dollars.... insurance only covered 90% of the total....that was in the fine print.. not that we had much of a choice.. since insurance from other providers for a family of 5 would have meant I was working to pay for insurance...


Edited by micky - September 03 2009 at 19:59

micky wrote: off on a tangent.... but I am the curious sort.... I might be ignored...  but I would be at the risk of an interesting tangent... I am curious just how much personal experience do you all have...that seem to have such a high degree of interest.. and presumably knowledge on the subject quick show of hands..err... posts..... how many here have insurance under our current system... if you don't.. why.... how many have had to use it. ... for what.... and were you.. as a CUSTOMER.. satisfied. I'll start.... I ...as one who had employer provided insurance.. wasn't satisfied when my ex-wife got a infection that went septic... and she was in ICU for a week after she nearly died (after being misdiagnosed I might add).   At the end .. we were presented a bill for THOUSANDS of dollars.... insurance only covered 90% of the total....that was in the fine print.. not that we had much of a choice.. since insurance from other providers for a family of 5 would have meant I was working to pay for insurance...

Ooh, goody! Story time!

My grandfather was told that his heart was so weak that it could stop at any moment, and he was at a risk of sudden cardiac arrest. He SHOULD have been hospitalized farily regularly during the months between that point and his next schedueled check-up, but because he didn't have the proper coverage, they couldn't just keep him in the hospital for free, now could they?

The morning of the day he was supposed to go back to the doctor, I had stayed with him the previous night. I watched him die suddenly in front of me.

I'm not saying that this is entirely the healthcare system's fault. Obviously the doctors, nurses and the hospital itself had a lot to do with it (careless handling of his case, and whatnot), but would I have felt better knowing that if he had wanted to, he COULD have actually recieved all the proper treatment? Absolutely.

Raff wrote: rushfan4 wrote: I think that the greatest fear with Universal Healthcare is that the government historically seems to screw up everything that they touch in some way, shape or form.  Whether it is billions of dollars paid for a war.  Seriously underpaid teachers, police officers, firemen, etc... but on the other hand a messed up education system and a questionable criminal system (depending on various points of view).  Social security and Medicare are both kind of teetering on the brink of failure.  And everybody has heard the stories of the government paying $1000 for each nut, screw and bolt that they purchased for various building projects or paying millions for research to determine which is the proper way to place toilet paper on a roll.  Is it more efficient to take it from the top or the bottom?    I agree 100% that the system needs to be improved, but the big question is do we really think that we can trust our government to do it right and actually improve it?  The even bigger question is: do you really think you can trust anyone else to do a good job - especially people who are in it solely for financial profit? Are we really so sure that the gov't is always the bad guy, and anything private is always good and wonderful? I can tell you that, at least in Italy, it is not so. I was badly ripped off by a private university, while my experience at a state university (even in retrospect) was much more positive. And what about the banks or companies that went so spectacularly belly-up? They were not part of the government, if my memory serves me right. I am not so sure that the gov't is the only entity guilty of wasting resources, manpower, and what not.