Do you support universal healthcare?

Padraic wrote: 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. I thought all healthcare was "free" in England.

Edited by Dean - September 05 2009 at 07:48

Slartibartfast wrote: When private health insurance companies jack up premium rates, do businesses have more money to pay their employees?

It depends on the company I guess. In my experience (the company I work for is American owned and one of our sister companies is based in Austin, TX), they cut their insurance premiums and offer reduced cover - in some cases that means no free health insurance (our company scrapped dental).

Yes ,the poor people and media class need free medical services  

So, let's get this straight.  The healthcare "reform" bill will fine people who don't buy into the private health insurance scam without even a public option to go to, the Republicans will get to run in the next elections as defenders of the people after working against any true reform, the Democrats who took oodles of money from health insurance scammers will get to keep their seats, the dems will then become the minority party in both the house and senate in the midterm elections, Obama will become a one term president.  Brilliant.  

Edited by Slartibartfast - October 29 2009 at 18:33

Yes, yes, dear lord yes.  I come from fairly wealthy and excessively conservative stock, and was driven to progressivism by my parents driving by poor people's houses and mocking them for having satellite television.  "If they wanted to go to the doctor, they shouldn't spend all their money on booze and TV, har har."   

thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: Yes, yes, dear lord yes.  I come from fairly wealthy and excessively conservative stock, and was driven to progressivism by my parents driving by poor people's houses and mocking them for having satellite television.  "If they wanted to go to the doctor, they shouldn't spend all their money on booze and TV, har har."    Well, don't you think it would be prudent to put your healthcare costs before 1000 channels of mostly garbage? If you're going to spend all your money on luxuries, is it reasonable to expect other people to pay for your necessities? "I can't afford food this week, because I bought a playstation 3 instead, so I expect you to pay my grocery bill, thanks." I don't see how that seems fair to anyone.

I don't think that any personal choices we make in our lives should force us to be devoid of healthcare.  If a man smokes eighty packs a day, and develops lung cancer, I think he deserves to be treated at a hospital like every other human being.  To do otherwise would be to attach moralities to what I believe is a basic human right.

Also, I reject the idea that poor people drink and watch TV because they are stupid.  Of late, I've learned what it means to be moderately poor; you seek out panacea, and entertainment is the opiate of the masses.  Rather than condemning them for their expenditures, I'd like to examine the society that allows such class stratification to exist.  Poor people are encouraged to adopt the airs of the upper class, and the upper class benefits from their crushing debt.

thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: Yes, yes, dear lord yes.  I come from fairly wealthy and excessively conservative stock, and was driven to progressivism by my parents driving by poor people's houses and mocking them for having satellite television.  "If they wanted to go to the doctor, they shouldn't spend all their money on booze and TV, har har."    Well, don't you think it would be prudent to put your healthcare costs before 1000 channels of mostly garbage? If you're going to spend all your money on luxuries, is it reasonable to expect other people to pay for your necessities? "I can't afford food this week, because I bought a playstation 3 instead, so I expect you to pay my grocery bill, thanks." I don't see how that seems fair to anyone. I don't think that any personal choices we make in our lives should force us to be devoid of healthcare.  If a man smokes eighty packs a day, and develops lung cancer, I think he deserves to be treated at a hospital like every other human being.  To do otherwise would be to attach moralities to what I believe is a basic human right. Also, I reject the idea that poor people drink and watch TV because they are stupid.  Of late, I've learned what it means to be moderately poor; you seek out panacea, and entertainment is the opiate of the masses.  Rather than condemning them for their expenditures, I'd like to examine the society that allows such class stratification to exist.  Poor people are encouraged to adopt the airs of the upper class, and the upper class benefits from their crushing debt. Okay, so what if a rich person, a millionaire say, spent all his money on yachts and private jets. Then he needs an operation. He could have easily afforded this if he hadn't squandered his wealth, but now he can't. You think the rest of society should pick up his bill because "the personal choices we make in our lives shouldn't force us to be devoid of healthcare?" This seems like a recipe for disaster. If everyone realizes they can get free healthcare if they can't afford it, there won't be much incentive to save, since someone else will pick up the tab.

Or, better yet, why not let everyone pay for their own health care.  The government will supply welathy people with yachts and private jets, and will supply Pabst Blue Ribbon and Direct TV for poor people.

thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: Yes, yes, dear lord yes.  I come from fairly wealthy and excessively conservative stock, and was driven to progressivism by my parents driving by poor people's houses and mocking them for having satellite television.  "If they wanted to go to the doctor, they shouldn't spend all their money on booze and TV, har har."    Well, don't you think it would be prudent to put your healthcare costs before 1000 channels of mostly garbage? If you're going to spend all your money on luxuries, is it reasonable to expect other people to pay for your necessities? "I can't afford food this week, because I bought a playstation 3 instead, so I expect you to pay my grocery bill, thanks." I don't see how that seems fair to anyone. I don't think that any personal choices we make in our lives should force us to be devoid of healthcare.  If a man smokes eighty packs a day, and develops lung cancer, I think he deserves to be treated at a hospital like every other human being.  To do otherwise would be to attach moralities to what I believe is a basic human right. Also, I reject the idea that poor people drink and watch TV because they are stupid.  Of late, I've learned what it means to be moderately poor; you seek out panacea, and entertainment is the opiate of the masses.  Rather than condemning them for their expenditures, I'd like to examine the society that allows such class stratification to exist.  Poor people are encouraged to adopt the airs of the upper class, and the upper class benefits from their crushing debt. Okay, so what if a rich person, a millionaire say, spent all his money on yachts and private jets. Then he needs an operation. He could have easily afforded this if he hadn't squandered his wealth, but now he can't. You think the rest of society should pick up his bill because "the personal choices we make in our lives shouldn't force us to be devoid of healthcare?" This seems like a recipe for disaster. If everyone realizes they can get free healthcare if they can't afford it, there won't be much incentive to save, since someone else will pick up the tab.

Believe it or not, many countries around the world provide universal health care for their citizens.  Admittedly, there will always be kinks in systems as complicated as national health care, but last I heard Sweden was a thriving, industrious country, with the world's 4th most competitive economy.  Although I will confess that I have scant information of the number of yachts the country supports.

I suspect if he is a rich man he will have paid more taxes.  Mind you that doesn;t allways follow as the rich tend to pay people to help them avoid taxes.  So yep if hes rich and he gets ill let him die (or her)  

Are we talking emergency services only, or all healthcare?
If it's all healthcare, is there a limit on the number of doctor visits? Could I go fourteen times a week on someone else's dime?