So your whole argument boils down to “it’s not fair”? Waaa!
And there’s nothing wrong with getting some healthcare for your labor. You are perfectly free to negotiate better benefits from your current employer, or to find a different job.
She’s not saying it’s “not fair.” She’s saying it’s not RIGHT. There’s a difference.
And your opposition to UHC boils down to “My money! Mine! Mine! MINEMINEMINEMINEMINE!”
Throw in some stomping feet and perhaps flinging yourself to the ground and kicking and we have ourselves a fine argument.
For a two year old.
Or, best of all, to make the system fair and right.
(Why is the conservative response always ‘love it or leave it!’? Bunch of fuckin’ idiots)
And who decides what’s “fair and right”? You and Guin?
No, thanks, I’ll pass.
I already pay ~$10K a year in health insurance. Seems to me, if you think I should pay even more, you might want to advance some compelling reason why I ought to do so, rather than name-calling. Shrug.
I think, if it were UHC, you wouldn’t have to be paying that 10K-you might then pay say, oh, 5k extra in taxes, for the same damned thing, dumbass.
The whole point, you empty-headed tool, is that you’d be paying less under UHC. If the revolution ever comes, and by some miracle you’re not shipped off to the Gulag immediately, feel free to continue paying your 10 grand to make a point (other than the one on the top of your head.)
And what miracle of leftist economics is going to achieve this? Paying 1/2 of what I am paying now, for the same benefits?
Really, how is that going to work?
I actually have a good idea why this is: Things that are easy to count, to quantify, are not the things that make people happy with the health care system. While the VA does all the right things on treating say, diabetics, the VA hospitals are old and maybe the staff isn’t all that personable. The diabetic doesn’t actually know they’re getting state of the art care, it doesn’t look high-tech, etc. If only they were getting care at one of those wonderful, high-tech hospitals with a brand new MRI machine ready to go!
Of course, some things that are hard to quantify, eg. having a doctor that actually takes the time to listen to you, are hard to quantify and/or are actively discouraged by insurers payment policies. Neither are rankings based on some criteria fool-proof indicators of quality, but when you see how many ERs can’t even remember to give a patient an aspirin when they’re having an AMI, youshouldn’t totally discount them either.
Read Irishgirl’s numbers on expenditures above. Then go out and find out more and you’ll change your mind.
Seems to me that if X% of the ppl are paying say $10,000 for health insurance (their cost may be less due to employer subsidisation) and the rest are either on some type of govt program or choose to do without. If UHC comes in, waves it’s magic wand and insures 100% of the population - taxpayers still have to pay the bill subsidizing for those who can’t work, choose not to work, or those who choose not to declare taxable income. So simple math would tell me that either the ppl currently contributing via insurance premiums are either going to be paying more to retain the same quality of service they now receive or will have to settle for less.
When did I call you a name? You accused someone else of making a childish argument. Your argument is, in its entirety, “Mineminemine.” That’s all you’ve got.
You can’t argue that the current system works better.
You can’t argue that it costs less.
You can’t argue that we’re getting the best health care.
All you can say is, “Mineminemine!” It’s the only argument you’ve got.
What’s funny is that the more you scream about how you don’t want to pay for others, the more your prices escalate and you pay and pay and pay and pay. And then the insurance companies count your money and giggle.
It’s not that the US healthcare system is broken, it’s that it’s not socialized medicine. Look at several of your grading points - it’s clear that any non-socialized system would be graded poorly.
Um, yeah, one Irish medical student’s opinion (and Ireland only ranks 19th in terms of healthcare, according to her own post) is very persuasive. :rolleyes:
Except our health care already costs more for less. We pay MORE. We get LESS.
There is a bureaucratic nightmare in every hospital and insurance company. They have bureaucrats whose only job is to wrangle bureaucrats who deal with bureaucrats.
In this thread we have someone whose job it is to weed through the bureaucratic tangle to find insurance policies for people. That’s his job. Where do you think the money to pay him comes from?
flickster, considering that a vast majority (myself included) have NO HEALTH CARE here in the US, I’d hate to see what you would consider “broken.”
Wrong. Your side has made the argument that UHC is better, but has failed to provide any evidence that it would be so, other than “it’s fair and right”.
And you think it would be any different under a UHC plan? :rolleyes:
We would just be entering a whole new realm of bureaucracy.
Did anyone else see 60 Minutes tonight? There was a segment on “medical tourism”, where people travelled to Thailand or India for medical treatment. Made me think of this thread – the general cost was given as 10% of that in the US, with “better” (I put better in quotes just because I can’t really quantify it) care and facilities. Doctors in these hospitals had done stints in the US and the staff seemed to be entirely composed of RNs.
The reason cited for the difference in cost? From what I gathered, lack of influence of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries were big. Of course, I’m sure that cheap labor and other factors play into it. In addition, this doesn’t address those who are too poor to just up and travel. Nonetheless, I have to wonder what effect it will have, if any, on the US healthcare industry.