Health Care Thread

Works for other countries. You saying we're not as good as other countries, Merlin?

fanaskin_sl said:

All I said was this guy is getting stitches doing something that isn't related to his survival

Click to expand...

lol, right. So any activity that isn't directly related to survival is something that fanaskin feels should be discouraged by society, in order to lower health care costs. Brilliant. Ban any and all sedentary entertainment businesses immediately. You're no longer allowed to attend concerts, sporting events, movies, and so on. From now on, the only entertainment allowed will be Zumba classes. Gotta keep those health care costs down!

Do you not see how fucking retarded your line of argument is? If socialized, single payer health care systems are so effective at encouraging risky, irresponsible, unhealthy behaviors why is it that Canada spends about 10% of it's GDP on health care (private and public spending), while the US spends 18%? Shouldn't it be the opposite? After all, you guys have tens of millions of people without health insurance that I'm sure are sitting at home covered in bubble wrap eating nothing but salad and getting 90 minutes of low impact cardio a day. Where is all the money going when you have so many people that are making such responsible choices fanaskin?

tad10_sl said:

In this is why it's pointless to argue with you idiots. If you can't realize the difference between providing services for 30 million and 300 million then what's the point?

TheBeagle is just as, if not more stupid. The effect of socialized medical care is to de-incentivize people to become doctors, UK NHS has only worked because they stole doctors from the commonwealth resulting in worse care in India and elsewhere and adequate care in the UK. We don't have places to easily steal cheap doctors.

Click to expand...

Canadian health care is administered by the individual provinces. It's not a national system. So you have provinces of under a million people that run their own systems, all the way up to Ontario with 13.5 million people. Why could such a system not work in the US? Each state would handle it's own system. Is there some magical cut off somewhere that prevents say, California or New York State from running a proper system, while Nebraska and Montana can?

I mean, this is such a mind bogglingly retarded line of argument you're taking up here, it's staggering.

TheBeagle_sl said:

Where is the shortage of doctors in Canada? If your argument is based on 'they have ten times fewer people, derp', guess what, they also have ten times fewer MDs.

Click to expand...

Same as in the US: general, primary care, especially in remote/rural locations. Everyone wants to be a specialist making half a million dollars a year, not a GP making a couple hundred grand. That really has nothing to do with the overall healthcare system though, and it's a fairly common problem throughout the developed world.

North American Union. We need to make it happen man.



We could be all cute with it and name the bill the Act of Union.

Merlin_sl said:

The hilarity of your argument is that we handed, or more like, the government seized control of healthcare, fumbled around and fucked it all up exactly as conservatives predicted they would because they fuck up everything they are handed, and the liberal argument is that the government didn't have ENOUGH control and if they did, it would be this healthcare utopia and we would all gather round and sing fucking kumbaya. Shit don't work, and it will never work because the government is a running fucking joke filled with incompetents and idiots. The ACA is just the latest example of how NOT to run something. But sure guys, I'm sure your right. Based on the history of government in charge of programs, lets do single payer. I'm sure THAT will work.

Click to expand...

Explain how a southern state like Kentuckey has it's own exchange and is amazingly popular and already successful?

I also don't see how government seized control of healthcare. I mean, you're still buying shit from a private company. You dumb.

fana, for starters, the washington examiner is most commonly used to line bird cages and is the equivalent of quoting Rush Limbaugh as a source. Secondly, the actual fucking article explains that it is state regulations (not Obamacare) that has Doctors whining because they will get paid less for treating people who have exchange plans, at a rate that is much lower than the national average. BUT, Cali also has the malpractice caps that everyone says is the magic bullet to control costs, so everything should be fine because they are saving quaddrillons of dollars a year thanks to tort reform.

The catch is of course that more and more people will be on exchange plans as time goes on because of the price of off-exchange plans will skyrocket. So eventually these boycotting doctors will have fewer and fewer patients to gouge. Or, Cali can simply turn around and say fine, all insurance will pay you at the medicare rate. It's all just negotiation.

Merlin_sl said:

The hilarity of your argument is that we handed, or more like, the government seized control of healthcare, fumbled around and fucked it all up exactly as conservatives predicted they would because they fuck up everything they are handed, and the liberal argument is that the government didn't have ENOUGH control and if they did, it would be this healthcare utopia and we would all gather round and sing fucking kumbaya. Shit don't work, and it will never work because the government is a running fucking joke filled with incompetents and idiots. The ACA is just the latest example of how NOT to run something. But sure guys, I'm sure your right. Based on the history of government in charge of programs, lets do single payer. I'm sure THAT will work.

Click to expand...

And has been evidenced earlier in the thread by myself and Kreugen the "fumbled and fucked up" parts including the ACA website to a slight degree, and all other parts to a major degree - have been largely in part because there were conservatives actively working to undermine the program in direct contradiction to them best representing their constituents.

All blue states but a handful took nearly THREE MONTHS negotiating so that they got a good rate for their people, the average red state literally took the first offer. Amongst other "failings" that were flat out incompetent or malicious treatment of their constituents.

Kreugen_sl said:

fana, for starters, the washington examiner is most commonly used to line bird cages and is the equivalent of quoting Rush Limbaugh as a source. Secondly, the actual fucking article explains that it is state regulations (not Obamacare) that has Doctors whining because they will get paid less for treating people who have exchange plans, at a rate that is much lower than the national average. BUT, Cali also has the malpractice caps that everyone says is the magic bullet to control costs, so everything should be fine because they are saving quaddrillons of dollars a year thanks to tort reform.

The catch is of course that more and more people will be on exchange plans as time goes on because of the price of off-exchange plans will skyrocket. So eventually these boycotting doctors will have fewer and fewer patients to gouge. Or, Cali can simply turn around and say fine, all insurance will pay you at the medicare rate. It's all just negotiation.

Click to expand...

Also with how I read the article Kreugen, it's not ALL exchange plans in California. It's for the specific "California Exchange" that the state of California is running to compete with the other exchange plans run by private companies. (Since as I've explained before there's no legal means that I'm aware of to refuse a plan without refusing all from a provider)

Big Phoenix_sl said:

Pays for it(assuming were talking about someone who can afford and simply doesnt have coverage)? Just because you dont have health insurance does not mean you cant pay medical bills.

Click to expand...

It probably does mean that, when we are talking about the exorbitant costs of care, especially with any real issue. So this person who doesn't want any insurance goes in for a checkup and is able to pay the 300 dollar fee out of pocket, good for him. He gets in a car accident on the way home and racks up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills due to injuries? More than likely he isn't paying for that.

Bullfucking shit, Phoenix.

I'm wealthy in comparison to most and my one uninsured year if I'd have continued it for a few decades (counting inability to work and no disability at the time) would've bankrupted me - and it was projected to be a lifetime condition. Even then it lasted SEVEN YEARS before I got it under control. I would've gone from just shy of 8 digits in investments to broke spending $250k roughly a year in tests and treatment plus another $30-40k in supporting the wife and myself. [Hell, just ONE of my medicines was $192/mo IN GENERIC....]

Sure, most people can prepare enough for a one time health expense - but there's plenty of lifetime ones that can crop up at ANY TIME and create a huge burden on everyone else if you start defaulting on them. And they're not really that rare to occur - and even the cheap ones add up.

If we could just get rid of the insurance in health insurance then all we would have is health amirite?

Just to reiterate:

fanaskin whined about "fat shaming" and compared eating junk food to playing sports.

Merlin_sl said:

The hilarity of your argument is that we handed, or more like, the government seized control of healthcare, fumbled around and fucked it all up exactly as conservatives predicted they would because they fuck up everything they are handed, and the liberal argument is that the government didn't have ENOUGH control and if they did, it would be this healthcare utopia and we would all gather round and sing fucking kumbaya. Shit don't work, and it will never work because the government is a running fucking joke filled with incompetents and idiots. The ACA is just the latest example of how NOT to run something. But sure guys, I'm sure your right. Based on the history of government in charge of programs, lets do single payer. I'm sure THAT will work.

Click to expand...

Reality, have you met it? I think you might have separated yourself from it while waiting in line for your hand outs.

Don't think I'm quite 1% for holdings although not far off - but regardless someonein my financial position should be untouchable by health turning too sour for income, no?

Assuming your won't insure doesn't mean can't afford theorem has a wide accuracy to it.

For short term shit and nonextreme shit you're likely right, but routine stuff isn't where medicine gets truly fucked up.

Yep, universal medicare. Glad you've come around.

Big Phoenix_sl said:

Then he loses his house and 401k and anything else of value. Just like what happens whenever you run up any other type of debt then default on it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, all those lower middle class people making 40k per year (in a household of 4) have awesome houses with sick equity and stacked 401ks. Don't be stupid.