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.

Jihadin wrote: Our healthcare...your healthcare..people are brought up under both system so each is use to their own. Some points are being made "at the moment" healthcare service. Depending on the injury/sickness/whateverthefukkailsyou paying back or free healthcare takes a back seat when your down and out. Because your main concern going to be taking up by...Do I have enough sickleave? How much do I have saved up to cover bills? How far can I stretch whatever additional incoming finance to break even till I can get back to work. How much ramien and hotdogs can I eat and can I really do it back to back if need be.

Most of that is covered in Canada as well. But that still doesn't answer the question I had originally asked: outside of propaganda and rhetoric, why are people opposed to UHC?

Coolyo294 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Jihadin wrote:2012 Apocalypse around the corner...first to starve is the thin people

We will just eat the fatties.

Zombieland survival rule #1: Cardio.

feth that,
survival tip #1 Im actually prepared AND am a much better shot then you.
Survival tip #2 Hope your cardio is better then my previously stated #1

KingCracker wrote:

Coolyo294 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Jihadin wrote:2012 Apocalypse around the corner...first to starve is the thin people

We will just eat the fatties.

Zombieland survival rule #1: Cardio.

feth that,
survival tip #1 Im actually prepared AND am a much better shot then you.
Survival tip #2 Hope your cardio is better then my previously stated #1

How to look insane protip #1 : Pretend you are ready for a zombiepocalypse
How to look insane protip #2 : Makes unnecessary threats about who you will shoot during eventual zombiepocalypse
How to look insance AND full of gak protip #1 : make previous claims while being a fatty (everyone knows that no fatty could ever survive more than 5 minutes in a zombiepocalypse)

Was thinking about healthcare today in fact. Why can't we look at healthcare in the same light as a police force or a Fireman force. We all pay for both of those services, it's not really all that different.

GG

mattyrm wrote:Just tax fatties is a better idea. Money talks.

Make them pay for two plane seats too. Why the feth do I only get the same baggage allowance when they weigh 120lbs more than I do?!

I agree with this exactly.

And it isn't Big Brother. Read 1984 before you make comparisons between Obama and the Party, Frazzled.

generalgrog wrote:Was thinking about healthcare today in fact. Why can't we look at healthcare in the same light as a police force or a Fireman force. We all pay for both of those services, it's not really all that different.

GG

Wouldn't the chance you need Healthcare at some point in your life dwarf the chances you'll need cops or firefighters, too?

I just want go out and say that the BMI charst that I've seen used in a lot offices, are really flawed. Back when I was well toned, and in great shape, the chart said I was "Obese" Even though I clearly wasn't even close.

Sasori wrote:I just want go out and say that the BMI charst that I've seen used in a lot offices, are really flawed. Back when I was well toned, and in great shape, the chart said I was "Obese" Even though I clearly wasn't even close.

Well yeah. I'm on the other side, being really short and small-framed. I've apparently been a few pounds away from malnutrition my whole life... go figure...

I apply a very simple test to these things. If tomorrow, you had to walk 2 hours to get to and from work, would you do it, or would you call in sick, or even worse, would you quit, given that it's possible that you'd have to do it the next day too.

If you are not going, then you are weak. Doesn't matter if it's fat, or just lack of exercice. You are weak and must harden up

Feth I know people who wouldn't even walk 1 hour...

generalgrog wrote:Was thinking about healthcare today in fact. Why can't we look at healthcare in the same light as a police force or a Fireman force. We all pay for both of those services, it's not really all that different.

GG

Yes, we pay for those, but aside from volunteer firefighters, we massively underpay them and constantly have problems properly finding the numbers we need.

Considering we're already having problems getting people to go into medicine, asking people to spend the massive amount it takes to get a doctorate in medicine then paying them less than they would make now in that field doesn't make much sense, does it?


It's hard to pay that off on a government doctor's salary, I remember how it was when my father worked at a little place called Carville while trying to do that.

Platuan4th wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Was thinking about healthcare today in fact. Why can't we look at healthcare in the same light as a police force or a Fireman force. We all pay for both of those services, it's not really all that different.

GG

Yes, we pay for those, but aside from volunteer firefighters, we massively underpay them and constantly have problems properly finding the numbers we need.

Considering we're already having problems getting people to go into medicine, asking people to spend the massive amount it takes to get a doctorate in medicine then paying them less than they would make now in that field doesn't make much sense, does it?


It's hard to pay that off on a government doctor's salary, I remember how it was when my father worked at a little place called Carville while trying to do that.

I don't know if that's wrong : http://www.usgovernmentbenefits.org/hd/index.php?t=medical+doctor+salary, but 225K really isn't bad at all. It's more like fething awesome, even. Is it not the right category?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Was thinking about healthcare today in fact. Why can't we look at healthcare in the same light as a police force or a Fireman force. We all pay for both of those services, it's not really all that different.

GG

Yes, we pay for those, but aside from volunteer firefighters, we massively underpay them and constantly have problems properly finding the numbers we need.

Considering we're already having problems getting people to go into medicine, asking people to spend the massive amount it takes to get a doctorate in medicine then paying them less than they would make now in that field doesn't make much sense, does it?


It's hard to pay that off on a government doctor's salary, I remember how it was when my father worked at a little place called Carville while trying to do that.

I don't know if that's wrong : http://www.usgovernmentbenefits.org/hd/index.php?t=medical+doctor+salary, but 225K really isn't bad at all. It's more like fething awesome, even. Is it not the right category?

That link to payscale.com is showing you the median for private and hospital doctors, not government employed doctors. Also, those are general surgeons, not general practitioners. Surgeons tend to get payed more. Remember that much of that pay is to offset education investment and malpractice insurance(something that many hospitals/clinics help cover).

I'll just say, my father made more than double when he moved to a non-profit clinic(and created their entire podiatry department) what he made working for the government. He never broke into 6 figures at Carville.

Edit: Looking for more info, have found that minimum wage for State Doctors as set by federal government is $36/hr. As cops are paid at the state or municipal level depending, it's a bit relevant.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Coolyo294 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Jihadin wrote:2012 Apocalypse around the corner...first to starve is the thin people

We will just eat the fatties.

Zombieland survival rule #1: Cardio.

feth that,
survival tip #1 Im actually prepared AND am a much better shot then you.
Survival tip #2 Hope your cardio is better then my previously stated #1

How to look insane protip #1 : Pretend you are ready for a zombiepocalypse
How to look insane protip #2 : Makes unnecessary threats about who you will shoot during eventual zombiepocalypse
How to look insance AND full of gak protip #1 : make previous claims while being a fatty (everyone knows that no fatty could ever survive more than 5 minutes in a zombiepocalypse)

Captain Buzzkill strikes again! You must be new around here. Zombie killin is a major topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoneLictor wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Just tax fatties is a better idea. Money talks.

Make them pay for two plane seats too. Why the feth do I only get the same baggage allowance when they weigh 120lbs more than I do?!

I agree with this exactly.

And it isn't Big Brother. Read 1984 before you make comparisons between Obama and the Party, Frazzled.

I read it when I was 11. It was fun.

Frazzled wrote:

How to look insane protip #1 : Pretend you are ready for a zombiepocalypse
How to look insane protip #2 : Makes unnecessary threats about who you will shoot during eventual zombiepocalypse
How to look insance AND full of gak protip #1 : make previous claims while being a fatty (everyone knows that no fatty could ever survive more than 5 minutes in a zombiepocalypse)

Captain Buzzkill strikes again! You must be new around here. Zombie killin is a major topic.

Yeah I'm new here. Or so everyone seems to need to tell me. Anyhow, far from me to restrict any description of what might we do in a fictional zombipocalypse... Just that if you think you are ready... well... in every sense of the word you aren't...

guess they have to bring back Dodgeball in school...motivate the Chub Scouts to "run"

Jihadin wrote:guess they have to bring back Dodgeball in school...motivate the Chub Scouts to "run"

I used to love dodgeball, and "flag" football (no one ever went for the flags, just the teeth). mmm fun fun.

azazel the cat wrote:

Jihadin wrote: Our healthcare...your healthcare..people are brought up under both system so each is use to their own. Some points are being made "at the moment" healthcare service. Depending on the injury/sickness/whateverthefukkailsyou paying back or free healthcare takes a back seat when your down and out. Because your main concern going to be taking up by...Do I have enough sickleave? How much do I have saved up to cover bills? How far can I stretch whatever additional incoming finance to break even till I can get back to work. How much ramien and hotdogs can I eat and can I really do it back to back if need be.

Most of that is covered in Canada as well. But that still doesn't answer the question I had originally asked: outside of propaganda and rhetoric, why are people opposed to UHC?

Its quite simple actually,

Why should I, a healthy individual, pay for someone else's medical problems?

Its not paying for someone else's problems that is causing the issue here. Its being forced to pay for it.

I, and many other people, don't like being forced to do something for little tangible benifit.


Fire Fighters and Police are a good opposing argument, but it is inherently flawed because their effect isn't just seen when there is a fire or a shooting.

Especially Police. Its what doesn't effect us that makes these guys so important. We get our money's worth from these guys every single day.

They prevent people from driving unsafely. If there was no risk of reprisal, alot more people would drive unsafely. More red lights would get run, people would drive at unsafe speeds(more blatently)

Its not the obvious criminals that Police forces stop the most, its all the little things that stack up.

Thats why we are willing to pay for them collectivly.


Medical treatment is a little different. If you live right, you won't need it. The only things that could possably effect you would be accidents or something that is totally unforseeable. And thats why there is private health coverage. If you want protection against the unknown, pay up.


Americans arn't sheep. We don't like getting forced to do something we don't want to do. Its a cultural thing.

azazel the cat wrote: But that still doesn't answer the question I had originally asked: outside of propaganda and rhetoric, why are people opposed to UHC?

Many aren't. But they keep getting shouted down by people saying "Keep your hands off my money!" and "Socialism id da EBIL!!!11!!!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:I apply a very simple test to these things. If tomorrow, you had to walk 2 hours to get to and from work, would you do it, or would you call in sick, or even worse, would you quit, given that it's possible that you'd have to do it the next day too.

If you are not going, then you are weak. Doesn't matter if it's fat, or just lack of exercice. You are weak and must harden up

Feth I know people who wouldn't even walk 1 hour...

Been there, done that. It's not fun but even a fattie like me can do it. Just need the right motivation, and earning a living is on the list.

Ask me to run any distance though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Its quite simple actually,

Why should I, a healthy individual, pay for someone else's medical problems?

Its not paying for someone else's problems that is causing the issue here. Its being forced to pay for it.

I, and many other people, don't like being forced to do something for little tangible benifit.

Ah, but you already are, in increased insurance premiums. Because the hospitals aren't eating the cost of providing emergency care for people who can't pay; they are passing it on - ultimately to YOU!

Medical treatment is a little different. If you live right, you won't need it.

So... everyone dies before they get old and start getting all the various ailments of the elderly? Thinks like arthritis, dementia, cancer, osteoperoris?

The only things that could possably effect you would be accidents or something that is totally unforseeable. And thats why there is private health coverage. If you want protection against the unknown, pay up.

Even people who DON'T pay up have that. Remember, hospitals can't turn away people who can't pay.

Americans arn't sheep. We don't like getting forced to do something we don't want to do. Its a cultural thing.

[dryly] Obviously you haven't watched the American political process in action. Talk about sheep following the (party) leader...[/dryly]

@Platuan4th

Co-payment, what's that? I am talking actual cost of service, cash out of pocket. Not that expensive.

Anyways, I was trying to give Vulcan there a good idea of what he could expect to pay for a doctors visit with no "health insurance."


I hear ya about running Vulcan, but imagine a zombie, monster, wolf, cops, bullies whatnot chasing you, then you run.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:@Platuan4th

Co-payment, what's that? I am talking actual cost of service, cash out of pocket. Not that expensive.

Anyways, I was trying to give Vulcan there a good idea of what he could expect to pay for a doctors visit with no "health insurance."


I hear ya about running Vulcan, but imagine a zombie, monster, wolf, cops, bullies whatnot chasing you, then you run.

Zombies can be outpaced with a good power walk. If I run... they'll catch me too tired to fight.

Wolf... just a feral dog. It would have to be pretty desparate to come after me, and I'd fight it for lunch. Sure, there's a good chance I'd loose. But there is NO WAY ON EARTH I'm going to be able to outrun an animal that routinely chases deer, moose, and buffalo down.

Cops... why would I run from the cops?

Bullies? These I have faced. Running just encourages them. Beating their discourages them pretty thoroughly, even if you get the beat out of you at the same time.

Monster... you might have me on that one.

Well, feth. I am sitting at a BMI of @26....
Of course, I am 6'4" 215# so of course I am "overweight".

In related news, a woman who wears a size 6 is now considered to be "Plus sized".

.Is size six the new plus size? It can be if you're a model. Twenty years ago, the average model was eight percent smaller than the average American woman -but today, models are 23 percent tinier than the rest of us. Want proof? According to Denise Bidot, a popular plus-size model and recent cover girl, size-six women often model what are supposed to be size-14 samples for plus-size catalogs.

lol I hate the army height/weight policy. I'm 230 at 72" and I always get taped since my max weight at 41 is 198. come out little under 25% body fat max is 26% so I do get nervous lol

For consideration....
John Cena - 6'1" - 251# - bmi = 33.
Looks like Cena is going to need "counselling".

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - 6'5" - 260 - bmi = 30.

@helgrenze - now that would be a good movie, the mis adventures of John Cena and The Rock as they undergo counseling for being obese under the guidance of a nanny state government.

That could be a riot, and I would pay to see it.

Swimmer Michael Phelps is the "standard" for my height. his bmi is 22.5.

The local football coach for the High School would be technically overweight. He said that according to the BMI chart he needed to lose 80 pounds. I tell you, if he lost 80 pounds he would be in serious trouble.

BMI doesn't work with muscular individuals, I have been flipping between 'overweight' and 'obese' for years, but that doesn't mean that it has no value for the general population. It is extremely easy to perform and it is acceptable for a first line test and that is why it is so widespread despite its limitations.

You can always get a soft tissue scan to determine you're correct BMI though...I got one recently for my own training...and lets just say that I can't say that I am just big boned anymore...

No relation to the above poster

Grey Templar wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Most of that is covered in Canada as well. But that still doesn't answer the question I had originally asked: outside of propaganda and rhetoric, why are people opposed to UHC?

Its quite simple actually,

Why should I, a healthy individual, pay for someone else's medical problems?

it's quite simple as well, actually. Because they will in turn pay your your medical problems. Car accidents are quite indiscriminate about the previous health of the victims.

Its not paying for someone else's problems that is causing the issue here. Its being forced to pay for it.

I, and many other people, don't like being forced to do something for little tangible benifit.

1 in 3 Americans will get cancer in their lives. I want you to look up the costs of cancer treatment. If you do not have that much money in the bank, then you may as well put two bullets into a revolver and play solitaire Russian Roulette. So I've underscored the part of your statement that is a falsehood. In order to make it correct, you have to qualify it as being "little tangible benefit as perceived by someone who has yet to be seriously ill or injured". That is, this is one of those cases where people whose attitudes are driven by propaganda and rhetoric need to be saved from themselves before they recognize their error only when it's too late.

And I am confident in saying that your attitude is being driven by the propaganda, as you are already forced to pay for things for other people. Your general income tax dollars do that every year. The question is not about increasing taxes to pay for health care; it's about reallocating current resources to do so. I think you'll find that if you look at how your tax dollars are already spent, you'll notice that the federal government is shipping off its funcitons to the private sector like it's a fire sale, and this is actually costing the government money as it requires the same amount of resources to be drawn from you, but you get less in return and thus the government is forced to draw more resources from you just to be able to maintain its previous status quo of services. Again, this is something that began with the Nixon administration. I have my own views about your political parties (which are far more muddied than you'll ever give me credit for, I'm sure) but I will refrain from including them here. However, I will point out that there has been a major trend ever since Nixon of the lowest-common-demonimator of voters being tricked into voting against their own interests. Anyway, moving on...

They [the police] prevent people from driving unsafely. If there was no risk of reprisal, alot more people would drive unsafely. More red lights would get run, people would drive at unsafe speeds(more blatently)

While the latter half of your statement is technically correct, it is far from accurate. The first bit you said is completely incorrect. The police are a retributive, response-oriented force. Their function is not based in prevention in any function outside of a generalized deterrent. This is the only reason the second part of your statement is somewhat correct. If there was no risk of reprisal, it is highly likely that no laws would be obeyed if breaking them gained individuals even the smallest modicum of utility. However, the three principles of deterrence are severity, celerity and certainty: and all three have to work in harmony in order to create an effective deterrent level. With your current justice system -particularly for traffic offenses- the element of certainty is almost nonexistent and the element of severity is a minor nuissance at best; and as such everyone drives too fast. However this is getting off topic. If you want to discuss the finer points of Beccaria's principles of deterrence, and how they relate to modern society and Bentham's concept of the panopticon, then just PM me. I'm always happy to engage in discourse on those topics.

Medical treatment is a little different. If you live right, you won't need it. The only things that could possably effect you would be accidents or something that is totally unforseeable. And thats why there is private health coverage. If you want protection against the unknown, pay up.

The trouble with this statement is that the health insurance you speak of is privatized, which means that every single insurance company's solitary goal is to make money from you. And the best way to do that is to take your money and then figure out a way to not deliver on services -such as claiming your ailment was a prior ailment. Another method is outright denial to many, many people. That is exactly why health care -which is considered a basic human right in most of the Western world- is never left to private organizations that will always have a conflict of interest by the very nature of them being profit-driven.

Americans arn't sheep. We don't like getting forced to do something we don't want to do. Its a cultural thing.

Actually, it's that attitude that makes many non-Americans think that many of you are sheep. (please, everyone read that statement clearly so that a flame war doesn't begin. I didn't say everyone or all, I said some or many. I'm sure that doesn't include you) You see, that stubborness and resistance to change is easily fueled by ignorance. It's very easy to convince someone to vote against something that will only benefit someone else, because so many people assume that they are not "someone else" to someone else. As a result, many people don't recognize their error until it's too late and they are unable to recover from it.

I recognize that your idea of universal health care is Obamacare -which I think was upheld by the SCOTUS today- however, that is not what I refer to as Universal Health Care. My definition is as follows: your overall income tax increases by 1-5% (depending on which income tax level you're at already. Likely yours would increase by 1-2% unless you make over 100K a year.) Inexchange, you never have to purchase private insurance, because you'll be covered by the state. Break your leg? No problem. Costs you nothing. Catch SARS? No problem. Costs you nothing. THAT is universal health care, and it does work, because in Canada, we've been doing it for a very long time, and we're in better economic shape than you are (granted there are other factors to this, but the point stands that the health care is not what will kill the national budgets or economies).

Palindrome wrote:BMI doesn't work with muscular individuals, I have been flipping between 'overweight' and 'obese' for years, but that doesn't mean that it has no value for the general population. It is extremely easy to perform and it is acceptable for a first line test and that is why it is so widespread despite its limitations.

BMI breaks after 5'11". The range for people taller than that goes from borderline anorexic to what most consider to "look fit". People that fall into the "Overweight" and "Obese" catagories include all professional athletes. Yeah some players could probably afford to tighten up their abs, but for the most part they are considered to be "fit" or "healthy".

It also doesn't help that different countries use slightly different charts to determine what is "healthy". In Japan, I would be considered "Obese" (Bmi 25+). Of course this is based on the Japanese body type, not the northern European one.

Age is another factor to be considered in calculating BMI.... but that metric is only used on calculations for children and young adults (ages 2-20).
It should also be noted that the current ranges (healthey, overweight, obese, etc...) were not established with references to any scientific study, but are arbitrary ranges.