Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

whembly wrote:

d-usa wrote:My brother got run over on his motorcycle by a car, ended up with a broken hand.

Taken to the emergency room, hand casted.
Follow up with outpatient orthopetic doctor the next day.
Weekly follow up visits for this injury as well as physical therapy visits to make sure he keeps full use of his hand.
6 weeks paid time off from work (he is a sys-admin, so unable to work when one of his hands is out of service. Hard to code and build servers with one hand) with no questions asked by his work.

Save to say this didn't happen in the United States.

You can quote cancer rates all you want, but it is stuff like what happened to my brother that really show how much our healthcare system sucks. Horrible employment laws and crappy workers rights also play a hand in that too.

Oh...right...that CAN'T happen here. (cancer rates? where did I state this?)

BTW: Glad your bro is doing good.

I've got hundreds of stories like that here...

No, it cant. Though in that situation it is more to do with the complete lack of worker right in the US

Okay... I'm going to stop. This isn't the thread to discuss this (of tho it is OT, sorry Ouze).

Edit: @youbedead Never said that system was perfect, I'm just defensive when folks totally trash it. I believe we have some of the brightest, best professional/care in the world. I don't dispute that the ACCESS to certain healthcare can be better (sorry 'bout your mom) and I favor changes to increase access.

whembly wrote:

d-usa wrote:My brother got run over on his motorcycle by a car, ended up with a broken hand.

Taken to the emergency room, hand casted.
Follow up with outpatient orthopetic doctor the next day.
Weekly follow up visits for this injury as well as physical therapy visits to make sure he keeps full use of his hand.
6 weeks paid time off from work (he is a sys-admin, so unable to work when one of his hands is out of service. Hard to code and build servers with one hand) with no questions asked by his work.

Save to say this didn't happen in the United States.

You can quote cancer rates all you want, but it is stuff like what happened to my brother that really show how much our healthcare system sucks. Horrible employment laws and crappy workers rights also play a hand in that too.

Oh...right...that CAN'T happen here.

Oh it can happen here, if you are lucky. But it is guaranteed to happen there.

(cancer rates? where did I state this?)

I thought it was this post:

whembly wrote:
I'll give it a shot(from UN International Health Organization):

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent.

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent.

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18.

Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent.
The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world. But cost and availability remain problems.

By only beef with this (and its sort goes against what I'm trying to say), is that NO ONE Nation aggregates the data the same way.. so, comparing statistics from one country vs another is practically useless... ( )

But that post had some messed up quotes, so if it was a quote from somebody else I am sorry for misunderstanding

BTW: Glad your bro is doing good.

Thanks.

whembly wrote:Okay... I'm going to stop. This isn't the thread to discuss this (of tho it is OT, sorry Ouze).

Edit: @youbedead Never said that system was perfect, I'm just defensive when folks totally trash it. I believe we have some of the brightest, best professional/care in the world. I don't dispute that the ACCESS to certain healthcare can be better (sorry 'bout your mom) and I favor changes to increase access.

If a third of your populace can't receive treatment then you have a gakky health care system. Our care is easily the best in the world, except we only give that level of care to a select few. If I were rich then I would rather receive care in the US.

Eventually when I come out of government/military medical care. I for one will actually read the insurance policy and pick the one I would probaly most likely need. Not to be cold hearted or beating the preacher but do you all actually read your medical policy and long term plan the cost?

Jihadin wrote:Eventually when I come out of government/military medical care. I for one will actually read the insurance policy and pick the one I would probaly most likely need. Not to be cold hearted or beating the preacher but do you all actually read your medical policy and long term plan the cost?

Not to argue away the validity of your point, but I would think that for the majority of people that is not an option.

The majority of jobs will offer you one policy. Most likely it is not the one that is best for you but simply the one that cost your boss the least amount of money.

If you are lucky then you might have two, or maybe even three to pick from. But that is a rare event.

I had the very rare pleasure to pick from over a dozen health plans, so I had a range of premiums and whatnots to pick over. We did look over the plans pretty closely to see what they would cover and what they wouldn't. We ended up going with a mid-range plan because we are likely going to have children soon (so coverage of pre-natal care and care during pregnancy and childbirth was compared), we looked at our family history (strong history of cancer), and then looked over the supplemental insurances like dental and vision (I need new glasses on a yearly basis). My plan cost me an extra $100-$150 a month, but it covers more so I save at the end.

So it is nice when you can pick and compare like that, but many can't. And I would assume that way to many people that do have the option simply pick the cheapest.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, whats the Obama plan?

I'm confused, are you trying to claim that the absence of an articulated Obama plan* makes the Ryan plan good by default? If that's the case, I'll just start proposing that, on the issue of giving dogma money, my plan is to have everyone give me all of theirs. If no one comes up with another plan, it must be a pretty good idea. Its fine though, I'll rule as a benevolent philosopher-king: booze and hookers for all!



*Of course, there is an articulated Obama plan. Note the whole budget debacle.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's about all the American electorate deserves, it's fethed itself proper by being idiotic.

To be fair, that's pretty much true of all democracies. Understanding politics and policy is a full time job, with an entire industry built around it. That most people don't understand either is roughly analogous to how most people don't understand how to rebuild an engine.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Again, whats the Obama plan?

I'm confused, are you trying to claim that the absence of an articulated Obama plan* makes the Ryan plan good by default? If that's the case, I'll just start proposing that, on the issue of giving dogma money, my plan is to have everyone give me all of theirs. If no one comes up with another plan, it must be a pretty good idea. Its fine though, I'll rule as a benevolent philosopher-king: booze and hookers for all!

Sorry Frazzle! I'm writing in dogma for Prez.

*Of course, there is an articulated Obama plan. Note the whole budget debacle.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's about all the American electorate deserves, it's fethed itself proper by being idiotic.

To be fair, that's pretty much true of all democracies. Understanding politics and policy is a full time job, with an entire industry built around it. That most people don't understand either is roughly analogous to how most people don't understand how to rebuild an engine.

Ugh, gakky running mate for a gakky candidate who's one of two gakky options. And it really ticks me off parts of the media are branding this jerk as a libertarian!

There's no real option, no real choice, As Lewis Black said "The American political system is a bowl of gak looking at itself in the mirror". It doesn't matter if Obama gets another four years, or if Romney takes the office, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer and we'll all be completely screwed.

I think I'm leaving the presidential voting slot blank on this year's ballot then give a vote to either jerk on the card.

whembly wrote:Was there someone you know who was denied coverage?

If he knows at least 7 people, then odds are he does.

whembly wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

My argument is that your health care system overall is crappy because it offers the best treatment to some people, and outright denies treatment to many others.
You argument is that your health care system is awesome because it gives the best treatment to some people.

You see, all those stats you quoted have the qualifier "who received treatment", which means those numbers do not reflect all the people that were denied coverage. What you have done is the equivalent of claiming that Sports Team X is the greatest ever because they have 200 wins, ignoring the fact that Sports Team X has an overall W-L-D record of 200-3000-50.

Like I said once already: health care is not the Olympics. You do not get to say you have the best health care because one guy got really great treatment. Doing so is like saying Americans are the greatest swimmers on earth because Michael Phelps is an outboard motor. We both know that it doesn't work that way, and that is why the WHO ranked the US #37 with a really crummy bullet: because they took into account the millions of Americans who are denied health care for economic reasons, whereas your skewed stats do not.


Anyway, I'll leave Shuma to take over from there if you need to discuss this one further. I'm off for now.

So, yeah... we don't get everything on a silver platter like your universal healthcare can provide, but we can make it work with what we have.

I'm willing to accept this as your surrender.

This certainly doesn't sound like someone describing the "best health care in the world". Keep in mind, this entire debate sprun forth from you claiming that the USA has the best health care system in the world; however your own story and quoted statement indicates that even you do not believe this beyond hollow jingoism. So like I said: I accept your surrender, and I hope it has led to some introspection on your decisions regarding health care.

I have enjoyed our debate, but I believe I am done now.

Good night, and good luck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv51e6kJX1M&feature=autoplay&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&playnext=1

Obama budget plan? What was the super committee for again?

Yeah, Paul Ryan isn't a libertarian. There isn't really a well known Libertarian in the country at the moment. No, Ron Paul is not a Libertarian either.

Jihadin wrote:Obama budget plan? What was the super committee for again?

Political cover and stall for time evidently.

whembly wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/11/why-the-democrats-mediscare-attack-wont-work-against-paul-ryan/
Mediscare won't work...

From the article

only applies to Americans younger than 55 years of age,

The democrats are lying when they say "Grandma will need to come live in your basement", but on the same token it will hit people full in the face in 10 years time if we remove medicare. It would be setting a time bomb into motion.

Why does medicare exist? Because no insurance company wants to ensure ages 65 and older (or younger people with disabilities). The premium that an insurance company would charge would be too high -- as its nearly a foregone conclusion that medical costs for someone 65 and older will be a net loss for the insurance company. To offset this, insurance companies would raise premiums across the board -- and especially so on the elderly.

This is the major flaw in the Ryan plan. The Ryan plan assumes that The Magical Hand of Free Market TM will lower insurance costs. They won't. If you want an example, look at the cost of gasoline. If The Magical Hand of Free Market TM worked in that capacity, then gas companies would not be making a dollar for every three dollars in gas sold. They would be undercutting each other until they were working with razor thin profit margins.

The Ryan plan is a prime example of a theory that looks great on paper but is flawed in execution. While the Ryan plan would possibly decrease administrative costs of health care by passing it from a public system to a private system, the company is still owned by shareholders who will want to maximize profits.

Instead we should be tackling the root of the problem -- why our health care costs are so high. This would lower the cost of medicare (thus lowering our spending and decreasing our deficit) and would eventually lower the cost of health care to average citizens through insurance companies. This can be done by addressing labor costs of specialists and hospitals.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2012/03/01/why-are-u-s-health-care-costs-so-high/2/
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/smui/following_the_money_whos_profi.html

labmouse42 wrote:

whembly wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/11/why-the-democrats-mediscare-attack-wont-work-against-paul-ryan/
Mediscare won't work...

From the article

only applies to Americans younger than 55 years of age,

The democrats are lying when they say "Grandma will need to come live in your basement", but on the same token it will hit people full in the face in 10 years time if we remove medicare. It would be setting a time bomb into motion.

Why does medicare exist? Because no insurance company wants to ensure ages 65 and older (or younger people with disabilities). The premium that an insurance company would charge would be too high -- as its nearly a foregone conclusion that medical costs for someone 65 and older will be a net loss for the insurance company. To offset this, insurance companies would raise premiums across the board -- and especially so on the elderly.

This is the major flaw in the Ryan plan. The Ryan plan assumes that The Magical Hand of Free Market TM will lower insurance costs. They won't. If you want an example, look at the cost of gasoline. If The Magical Hand of Free Market TM worked in that capacity, then gas companies would not be making a dollar for every three dollars in gas sold. They would be undercutting each other until they were working with razor thin profit margins.

The Ryan plan is a prime example of a theory that looks great on paper but is flawed in execution. While the Ryan plan would possibly decrease administrative costs of health care by passing it from a public system to a private system, the company is still owned by shareholders who will want to maximize profits.

Instead we should be tackling the root of the problem -- why our health care costs are so high. This would lower the cost of medicare (thus lowering our spending and decreasing our deficit) and would eventually lower the cost of health care to average citizens through insurance companies. This can be done by addressing labor costs of specialists and hospitals.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2012/03/01/why-are-u-s-health-care-costs-so-high/2/
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/smui/following_the_money_whos_profi.html

Or just go to a Canadian style system that everyone has to use regardless of wealth.

That would require a major overhaul by privatizing all health care professionals and institutions in the US.

It would also then require a forced restructure of health care professional labor costs.

While that would work, the backlash would be to much. Society tolerates only one change at a time.

labmouse42 wrote:That would require a major overhaul by privatizing all health care professionals and institutions in the US.

It would also then require a forced restructure of health care professional labor costs.

While that would work, the backlash would be to much. Society tolerates only one change at a time.

They had the chance in 2009. They ed it with this horrible trash that was put in place. This is why people don't trust the government here to even be minimally competent.

Here that lefty treehuggers! You weren't being lefty treehugger enough!

I disagree. There was no way radical change would have passed the Senate.

Given the way a filibusterer works in today's congress, if even one democrat or independent decided that the change was to radical then it would have never passed.
Do you remember Ben Nelson and the "Cornhusker Kickback" he required to get on board. If the change was more radical, then others would have required kickbacks or not gotten on board at all.

If filibusters still required someone standing on a podium talking, like when the Louisiana senator Huey P Long who recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for "pot-likkers" during his filibusters, they would end considerably faster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Compromise

labmouse42 wrote:I disagree. There was no way radical change would have passed the Senate.

Given the way a filibusterer works in today's congress, if even one democrat or independent decided that the change was to radical then it would have never passed.
Do you remember Ben Nelson and the "Cornhusker Kickback" he required to get on board. If the change was more radical, then others would have required kickbacks or not gotten on board at all.

If filibusters still required someone standing on a podium talking, like when the Louisiana senator Huey P Long who recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for "pot-likkers" during his filibusters, they would end considerably faster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Compromise

Stangely we've maged to enact Social Security, oversaw Reconstruction and the constitutional amendments follwing the Civil War, oversaw the 1960s civil rights movement and legislation, Welfare, and Welfare reform with the exact same system.

Frazzled wrote:
Or just go to a Canadian style system that everyone has to use regardless of wealth.

Not how Canadian healthcare works.

Dang, I was 75% certain it was going to be T-Paw this time.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Or just go to a Canadian style system that everyone has to use regardless of wealth.

Not how Canadian healthcare works.

I know how the Canadian system works. This would force all classes to use the same system. It would then of course be the best in the world. Enlightened self interest, its the gas!

Frazzled wrote:
I know how the Canadian system works.

No, you really don't. Canada still has private insurance, which means all classes do not use the same system. At least not in the sense you mean.

Frazzled wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:That would require a major overhaul by privatizing all health care professionals and institutions in the US.

It would also then require a forced restructure of health care professional labor costs.

While that would work, the backlash would be to much. Society tolerates only one change at a time.

They had the chance in 2009. They ed it with this horrible trash that was put in place. This is why people don't trust the government here to even be minimally competent.

Here that lefty treehuggers! You weren't being lefty treehugger enough!

First: that's not privatization, the health care system already is private; that's socialization.
Second: Frazz, it's Hear that lefty socialisthippies! First thing I see on Dakka today and you have to kick start my inner grammar Nazi.
The real opportunity to socialize health care was in the 60's; we missed it. Now any solution will be late and expensive. If our collective vision of America's future involves healthcare as a right rather than a luxury we need to socialize the system now. There will probably remain a private system like the Catholic Health System and the Deaconess hospitals and similar religious care networks. For myself I would rather start making steps to killing Medicare/Medicade and putting the Healthcare system in nationalized hands, but hey what do I know about positive socialism: I'm just a Republican.

Careful AustonT, if they hear you say that you'l get called a RINO.

Melissia wrote:Careful AustonT, if they hear you say that you'l get called a RINO.

To which I respond, "Come at me Bro!" I don't remember if you were in on this thread but:

AustonT wrote: I should know I'm a liberal Republican, I think they call us RINOs now.

I'm comforted by the fact I'm in good company like Barry Goldwater.

Frazzled wrote:Stangely we've maged to enact Social Security, oversaw Reconstruction and the constitutional amendments follwing the Civil War, oversaw the 1960s civil rights movement and legislation, Welfare, and Welfare reform with the exact same system.

Respectfully, we haven't used the same system. That was why I mentioned the filibuster.

Had we had the same filibuster system that we have today in place, I would suspect those changes would have either taken much longer to pass or not passed at all.

In the 60s, a senator would have to literally stand up and keep talking. When that was changed to a procedure, then a filibuster could be done indefinitely without needing to be at the podium. What was originally a way to be an ass about making your point was changed into a pure blocking mechanism.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I know how the Canadian system works.

No, you really don't. Canada still has private insurance, which means all classes do not use the same system. At least not in the sense you mean.

I SAID THAT. I said mdify so that everyone has to have the same system, no opt out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:That would require a major overhaul by privatizing all health care professionals and institutions in the US.

It would also then require a forced restructure of health care professional labor costs.

While that would work, the backlash would be to much. Society tolerates only one change at a time.

They had the chance in 2009. They ed it with this horrible trash that was put in place. This is why people don't trust the government here to even be minimally competent.

Here that lefty treehuggers! You weren't being lefty treehugger enough!

First: that's not privatization, the health care system already is private; that's socialization.
Second: Frazz, it's Hear that lefty socialisthippies! First thing I see on Dakka today and you have to kick start my inner grammar Nazi.
The real opportunity to socialize health care was in the 60's; we missed it. Now any solution will be late and expensive. If our collective vision of America's future involves healthcare as a right rather than a luxury we need to socialize the system now. There will probably remain a private system like the Catholic Health System and the Deaconess hospitals and similar religious care networks. For myself I would rather start making steps to killing Medicare/Medicade and putting the Healthcare system in nationalized hands, but hey what do I know about positive socialism: I'm just a Republican.

Again, look to the five best systms overall in the world, and the best parts of our system. Steal their ideas and integrate with our advantages. Voila.
Achieve that and your party will be elected for a decade. Obamacare aint that.

Haven't read the whole thread, sorry.

I wasn't suprised to hear that he wants to cut taxes for the wealthy and balance the budget with cuts to social programs. Wasn't suprised to hear he's a big believer in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. But opposed to abortion in all situations, including rape and incest, and even in cases that endanger an expectant mother's life? Wow.

I hope Obama wins.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/13/an_extreme_choice_embracing_ayn_rand

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/13/the_paul_ryan_vision_of_america