Do you support universal healthcare?

Finnforest wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Finnforest wrote:   QFT Jim and I agree on politics. Awesome. Hey Alex!!!  Drinks on me!!!

I've never had liquor before, but I'll take some drink at least.

high five

p0mt3 wrote: Padraic wrote: 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... timidly raises hand.... I guess I'll probably be in the minority here, but I am highly satisfied with my insurance.  They cover everything and my co-pays are pretty low.  And hell yes I have had to use it - labor and delivery services for my two kids weren't cheap, and my eldest son spent a week in a hospital when he was six months old....that was a bill I would have had a tough time paying (would have wiped me out, really).  That's why I'm for at the very, very bare minimum some sort of universal catastrophic coverage - no one should have to be bankrupted or wiped out because they or their children got seriously ill.  . . . Just a little asterisk, here . . . labor and delivery services are free* in England.

*It's just like those advertisements where they say it's free but there are tons of hidden fees... in this case, taxes.

Finnforest wrote: I hate to be negative about this, but I've no reason to believe they're going to get this right, and they seem hell bent on ideologies than sitting down together and figuring out the best case for the people.

Best statement I've read in this thread.

Seriously.

rushfan4 wrote: 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. No doubt.  For years there have been numerous stories of people who needed various treatments to try and fight their diseases, but being denied coverage because the insurance company bureaucrats felt that it was more important that they turn a profit so the company can pay out bonuses, then it was for the sick person to get potential treatment for their diseases.  And no doubt there are stupid and corrupt people in the private industry as well as in the government.    I have no experience with Universal Healthcare.  All I can relate to is the stories that I have heard over many years regarding Canada's health care system.  Stories of waiting weeks or months to see a doctor.  Stories of doctors working as telephone salesman because they can earn more money doing that instead of working as a doctor; etc...  I don't know how much is truth and how much is legend, but I have certainly heard these stories my whole life.

Wow! I wonder how M@X or any of the other Canadians here have managed to stay alive this long, then!


Edited by p0mt3 - September 03 2009 at 20:28

I have employer-subsidized insurance....they pay 3/4, I pay 1/4.   Never use it.  Except for heartburn issues, I've never really needed anything. 

I've paid into everything all my life, like everyone else, and am pretty sure by the time I get old and need something, they'll figure out a way to say I have to pay myself.  Just cynical I guess. 

I don't particularly like or trust government, but I don't trust corporations either.  Pre-ex conditions, loss of portability, convenient denials in the fine print, waste.

I hate to be negative about this, but I've no reason to believe they're going to get this right, and they seem hell bent on ideologies than sitting down together and figuring out the best case for the people. 

I'm with Robert/Epignosis.  I'll have a beer and admit I'm not smart enough to know all the dynamics--all I know is that both sides in Washington seem full of sh*t to me.  If they were sincere they would work together and take time to hammer out a centrist agenda that covers catastrophic issues while maintaining some fiscal sanity.  That means no one loses their house because they get cancer, but if they want plastic surgery or fertility treatments, buy private insurance. 

rushfan4 wrote: I've had health insurance on my own for almost 20 years (I was also covered for my first 21 years under my dad's health insurance), and I have been very fortunate that I haven't had to significantly use it.  Currently, my insurance is the worst that I have ever had.  It is a high deductible health plan, which basically means that unless disaster strikes I have to pay for all of my health care.  I believe that the first $2,500 of health expenses each year have to come out of my pocket before the insurance kicks in.  Fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, I have yet to benefit anything from having health insurance since we switched over to this plan.    So from a personal standpoint, Universal Healthcare would most likely be an improvement over my current insuracne plan (depending on how the Universal Healthcare is actually designed).  i.e. it might end up costing me more in taxes than what I am currently paying in premiums, and to a worse extent, my current deductible.

Spoken like a true Accountant, Scott.

I've had health insurance on my own for almost 20 years (I was also covered for my first 21 years under my dad's health insurance), and I have been very fortunate that I haven't had to significantly use it.  Currently, my insurance is the worst that I have ever had.  It is a high deductible health plan, which basically means that unless disaster strikes I have to pay for all of my health care.  I believe that the first $2,500 of health expenses each year have to come out of my pocket before the insurance kicks in.  Fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, I have yet to benefit anything from having health insurance since we switched over to this plan. 

What is the situation in Europe regarding malpractice lawsuits and doctors?  Americans are so sue-happy, malpractice insurance is one of the largest expenses that a doctor has to pay for in order to practice medicine. 

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.

^ and I'm sure others can give examples of the greed and inefficiency of private industry...  only profit matters..


for the .01% of us that work for medical insurance.. that is great... for the rest of us...  would you rather be f**ked for someone's profit...  or take a chance on the government doing it right.  We know 'medicine for profit' isn't working...  how intelligent is it to go down with a sinking ship...  I can tell you one thing...  medicine for profit has killed FAR more people than our government's inefficiency.