Health Care

[Uncle Mxy]

I love the question "How is it possible that the richest, most economically developed nation on Earth doesn't provide free healthcare to all its citizens?" Well dummies, it is the richest nation because we've never done stupid shit like give healthcare to everyone in it. Most people have to have an incentive to work,... simple as that. A great country takes a step back with this bonehead move.

The Scandinavian countries enjoy our GDP per capita, and have had socialized healthcare for decades. The Japanese famously managed to kick our butt productivity-wise back in the '80s, with a big boost from the socialized healthcare and other guv'mint aspects we set up for them post-World War II. We're too big to have it as well-off as the smaller countries?

[Tahoe]

The smaller countries have 1 fuggin MRI machine for the entire country...or something.

Not that bad, but hopefully you get my point.

My brother is a friggin lib and he always comes up with countries that have health care for all.

But some of them don't get MRIs every time they get a fuckin headache.

They don't get hips replaced.

They don't get their knees replaced or operated on because of a pickup game.

They don't get aids drugs (unless they get them from the US).

They don't get chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

They don't get Heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants.

They don't get therapy cuz they can't sleep cuz they have too much stress in their lives...on top of drugs.

We have the best health care and its fuckin expensive especially because we developed most of it. And we're going to give it to peeps who can't afford it and the working man is going to pay for it.

[geerussell]

Life expectancy by country:

1. Japan
2. Hong King
3. Iceland
4. Switzerland
5. Australia
6. Spain
7. Sweden
8. Israel
9. Macau
10. France
11. Canada

... how far down do you have to go to get to us...

35. Chile
36. Denmark
37. Cuba
38. United States

Stay classy, America.

[Uncle Mxy]

The smaller countries have 1 fuggin MRI machine for the entire country...or something.

Not that bad, but hopefully you get my point.

My brother is a friggin lib and he always comes up with countries that have health care for all.

But some of them don't get MRIs every time they get a fuckin headache.

They don't get hips replaced.

They don't get their knees replaced or operated on because of a pickup game.

They don't get aids drugs (unless they get them from the US).

They don't get chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

They don't get Heart transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants.

They don't get therapy cuz they can't sleep cuz they have too much stress in their lives...on top of drugs.

I put the key unarguable words in bold. Obviously, every socialized health program is different, with different strengths and weaknesses. Who says we have to have a shitty socialized healthcare system?

We have the best health care and its fuckin expensive especially because we developed most of it. And we're going to give it to peeps who can't afford it and the working man is going to pay for it.

If we have the best healthcare, why don't our people collectively live as long and have as good a quality of life and health as some of these other rinkydink countries? What's breaking down?

The U.S. still leads on several fronts, but hardly has an overall monopoly on developing leading edge healthcare and biotech these days. Go look at the explosive growth of Big Pharma in Europe, or the Asian countries where the big-time stem cell research and human trials are happening due to regulatory issues.

[xanadu]

its not the taxing of subsidies, its the fact that the gov just gave employers an incentive to cut health insurance. since it appears i have to have health insurance regardless, what do i care if a job offers insurance? but for my company? in my situation, i believe my boss pays between 6 and 10 thousand dollars per employee for insurance. under obama care, they can pay a 2000 dollar fine instead, and uncle sam will suddenly have a bigger cost than expected. we have about 50 employees, lets say insurance is 8k, thats 300k savings a year thanks to obama... if thats what they ended up doing. 300k savings for my boss, not america, thats a debit to america.

whats the fix? raise the penalty, right? well, many jobs cant afford to pay for health insurance. i dont know how much the subsidies will counter this, but even at a penalty of 2k, jobs that other wise would have existed simply wont. raise the penalty, more jobs vanish.

1. There are more efficient ways to increase jobs than provide subsidies for private insurance for retired persons.

2. Employers have traditionally provided insurance because a) they could spread risk across employees vs. the individual market where risk would not be spread and b) there is a big tax break to provide insurance.

The new law increases incentives for employers to provide insurance by instituting the fine (+ the already available tax breaks). This is not a disincentive to provide insurance. On the other hand, the govt. is trying to make it easier for individuals to get their own insurance. This may lead to a decrease in employer provided insurance, but so what. In the long run, we're better off if individuals are not dependent on their job for insurance.

3. boo-fucking-hoo that employers lost their govt. handout through the new law. The fact that employers are threatening to cut off their retirees based on the change from a law instituted in 2003 demonstrates that it is ridiculous to rely on employers to provide insurance in the first place. We always hear about wasteful spending. This seems like wasteful govt. spending to me.

[Tahoe]

Iput the key unarguable words in bold. Obviously, every socialized health program is different, with different strengths and weaknesses. Who says we have to have a shitty socialized healthcare system?


If we have the best healthcare, why don't our people collectively live as long and have as good a quality of life and health as some of these other rinkydink countries? What's breaking down?

The U.S. still leads on several fronts, but hardly has an overall monopoly on developing leading edge healthcare and biotech these days. Go look at the explosive growth of Big Pharma in Europe, or the Asian countries where the big-time stem cell research and human trials are happening due to regulatory issues.

BECAUSE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Libs always want to make a straight line out of our crooked population with more Gov't intervention. Its fuckin crazy, imo. Survival of the fittest folks. Let it happen.

Its like Fool interpalatin the bible...cuz throughout the Bible it says help peeps, he says that means the fuggin GOV"T (anyone heard of serperation?) should tax peeps to pay for other peeps health care. I agree with Gla...he makes no sense.

Anyway, some peeps think helping peeps means making them responsible for their own actions.

[b-diddy]

1. There are more efficient ways to increase jobs than provide subsidies for private insurance for retired persons.

2. Employers have traditionally provided insurance because a) they could spread risk across employees vs. the individual market where risk would not be spread and b) there is a big tax break to provide insurance.

The new law increases incentives for employers to provide insurance by instituting the fine (+ the already available tax breaks). This is not a disincentive to provide insurance. On the other hand, the govt. is trying to make it easier for individuals to get their own insurance. This may lead to a decrease in employer provided insurance, but so what. In the long run, we're better off if individuals are not dependent on their job for insurance.

3. boo-fucking-hoo that employers lost their govt. handout through the new law. The fact that employers are threatening to cut off their retirees based on the change from a law instituted in 2003 demonstrates that it is ridiculous to rely on employers to provide insurance in the first place. We always hear about wasteful spending. This seems like wasteful govt. spending to me.

i think your missing my point? 1) the bill is going to destroy jobs. not great jobs, but jobs nonetheless. 2) one of the costs the bill probably isnt considering the firms that will drop health insurance in favor of letting uncle sam flip the tab. my understanding is that the gov planned on the private sector carrying the the load, and expanding on it to fill in the cracks. right now firms pay insurance because workers will go to a firm that does if theirs doesnt. but if it doesnt matter if your job offers insurance, and the fine is far cheaper than actually providing it (it is, as far as i know) then uh oh. well, uh oh if you care about the cost of this bill. my distinct impression is that almost no one does.

[Uncle Mxy]

BECAUSE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Libs always want to make a straight line out of our crooked population with more Gov't intervention. Its fuckin crazy, imo. Survival of the fittest folks. Let it happen.

Seems to be working out well in Somalia, with Terry Schaivo, etc.

Its like Fool interpalatin the bible...cuz throughout the Bible it says help peeps, he says that means the fuggin GOV"T (anyone heard of serperation?) should tax peeps to pay for other peeps health care. I agree with Gla...he makes no sense.

Anyway, some peeps think helping peeps means making them responsible for their own actions.

It's against the law for people who choose to kill themselves to do so.
We've got a long way to go, here...

[gusman]

wow this is intense!

[xanadu]

i think your missing my point? 1) the bill is going to destroy jobs. not great jobs, but jobs nonetheless.

The bill just takes away a govt. subsidy that was ill-conceived in the first place. Your position seems to be that all government subsidies must be locked in place, regardless of how efficient those subsidies are. The revision of subsidies will always be met with claims about job losses. However, job gains can more than offset losses if subsidies are used more efficiently. Anyways, how many jobs are "destroyed" by the inefficiencies of our current health care system? No other country spends close to the amount we do for health care.

2) one of the costs the bill probably isnt considering the firms that will drop health insurance in favor of letting uncle sam flip the tab. my understanding is that the gov planned on the private sector carrying the the load, and expanding on it to fill in the cracks. right now firms pay insurance because workers will go to a firm that does if theirs doesnt. but if it doesnt matter if your job offers insurance, and the fine is far cheaper than actually providing it (it is, as far as i know) then uh oh. well, uh oh if you care about the cost of this bill. my distinct impression is that almost no one does.

You still haven't explained why imposing fines on companies makes them more likely to drop coverage of employees. Wouldn't they be more likely to drop coverage without the fine? It doesn't make any sense.

Nonetheless, if the long term consequences of the plan lead to a Dutch-style system of individuals purchasing insurance through regulated insurance exchanges, I would have no problem with that. There is no inherent advantage to employer provision of health insurance if you can generate large risk pools without employer based coverage. Right now, we do not have an efficient mechanism for risk pooling. However, that is an aim for the bill.

Anyway, the entire conservative argument against health care reform is premised on the idea that there are no data for alternative approaches to health care. However, there is plenty of evidence that the US approach is both more expensive and less effective than every other first-world country. The do-nothing approach just leads to continuing this trend.