Do you support universal healthcare?

rpe9p wrote: 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 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.

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?


Edited by p0mt3 - September 03 2009 at 19:36

Okay, in all seriousness . . .

"The traditional Medicare program administered by the federal government is very efficient. It only spends 3 percent or less on administrative costs, compared to an average of 12 percent for private insurance companies."

Taken from:

http://standupforhealthcare.org/pages/medicare/

Obviously, a biased site, but it still gives this information that I have seen numerous other places as well. Of course, the people against this will simply say they are lying, but without actual numbers or charts, i don't really see how this debate in particular could ever evolve beyond being based purely on heresay. Unfortunately.


To be fair, here is an article reporting what Plainview brought up before, and there are some good points made here, as well:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/06/medicares-efficiency-/comments/page/2/

Although, I'm not too sure what comparisons to ''The West Wing'' do for the counter-argument, but the guy brings Jimmy Smitts up anyway.


Edited by p0mt3 - September 03 2009 at 19:30

Okay, okay, I admit. I'm afraid to show mine . . .

 . . . it may hurt some other people's feelings, that's all I'm saying.

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

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?

rpe9p wrote: If I need treatment in 10/20 years hopefully I will either have insurance or have money saved up in case something like that happens.  If not, then I will die and that is just the way I would prefer it. I would be open to the idea, however, of some sort of affordable disaster care insurance the government controls that will protect people from disasters like cancer.

Nevermind. After reading this statement, I now realize it is impossible to talk sense with someone in a mindset such as yours.

Enjoy your tea party.

rpe9p wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Would you rather remain in the debt we are in, plus have sloppy management of tax-payed healthcare, OR would you rather be a little bit further in debt, but as a result have a more efficient, government-managed insurance policy where those who can't play for their own healthcare are provided for, while wasting less tax payer money? The big costs are for expensive tests/treatments, not the care which is currently provided and financed by taxpayers.  Also this bolded part made me laugh, definitely an oxymoron

You can laugh at me all you want. It still doesn't make you right.

Listen, I don't know what you're on, but the reality is that this healthcare bill would in fact do much more good than bad. The Government isn't always the answer, but in a case like this, I do think it would be more efficient. You can chuckle at that statement all day, but it doesn't change the numbers. 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.


Edited by p0mt3 - September 03 2009 at 18:52

Epignosis wrote: J-Man wrote: Epignosis wrote: Liberals are stupid. Conservatives are stupid. People deserve free healthcare because they do. We shouldn't have to foot the bill for someone else. You're all communists. I think I'll have another beer and ignore this thread from here on out...I will be the first to admit that this is a bigger issue than I'm smart enough to deal with, but I'm pretty sure I know logical fallacies when I see them, and this thread is full of them. Time for a beer. That I bought. With my hard-earned dollar. Alright Robert, I'll be done too. I'm a teenager so what the hell do I know anyway? You know good music when you hear it.  Well, most of the time.  (cough The Decemberists cough)

Wait this is a music forum?

The T wrote:   rpe9p wrote: Just so people in other countries know, if you walk into a US hospital missing an arm, they wont turn you away because you cant pay for treatment.  They are required by law to treat you and make sure your wounds have been adequately taken care of.  They just they wont give you any expensive tests or pay for your cancer treatment for you, and for the most part im fine with that.   My sister would've died or her cancer would've gotten worse if she lived here instead of Germany....   Let's just hope in 10/20 years from now you are not in need of any kind of cancer treatment.... And if you are, and your type of mindset wins, you're on your own.

If I need treatment in 10/20 years hopefully I will either have insurance or have money saved up in case something like that happens.  If not, then I will die and that is just the way I would prefer it.

I would be open to the idea, however, of some sort of affordable disaster care insurance the government controls that will protect people from disasters like cancer.

Negoba wrote: rpe9p wrote: Yeah Obama would do a lot better if he adopted your strategy and just started belittling conservatives because obviously anyone who believes in fiscal conservatism has been tricked by the big businesses or is downright stupid. Its difficult to argue the side of fiscal responsibility on an internet forum because there is usually a large liberal majority, but one very simple thing that you must realize people in the US are basing their views on is the fact that the US has just gone through a huge recession which Obama has tried to fix by loads and loads of deficit spending.  Americans see this healthcare bill and the fact that it will put us another $1 trillion more in debt at least and maybe they feel that this isnt the time to insitute this health care system. Just so people in other countries know, if you walk into a US hospital missing an arm, they wont turn you away because you cant pay for treatment.  They are required by law to treat you and make sure your wounds have been adequately taken care of.  They just they wont give you any expensive tests or pay for your cancer treatment for you, and for the most part im fine with that.   You realize you are completely deluding yourself? I am belittling the idea that it's ok to deny poor people care because it is FRICKIN INSANE. No amount of "fiscal conservative" rhetoric will change the fact that a society that runs solely on the "Look out for #1" philosophy will fail. And your liberal majority whining is an excuse.   I believe profit for profit's sake only IS evil. Living a life based only on improving your own station is a sad excuse for a life. And basing a society on the assumption that the only motivating factor humans have is self-interest is a sad statement on your soul.

You are grossly oversimplifying my views and attacking me for no reason.  As I said earlier in the thread, most everyone believes that people are entitled to some amount of health care, yet people like you keep making it out as though republicans just want to kill everyone if they dont have money.