What is you view?

It's not gonna help one bit... it's just going to make things worse. I, obviously, voted "hate it".

Also, shouldn't this be in Debate/Logic/News Discussion?

It is definately not the right way to go. The more parts of the economy the government gets their hands on, the more bad things will happen. Our health care system is already the best in the world, so I don't think the whole system needs to be torn down. Adjustments could be made to help certain people, but for the most part we don't need a change. Things could definately be done in a smaller, more cost efficient way.

You know, I am just tickled to know that there is a conservative gaming community like the awesome: "Vizzed Board"!! - and I'm glad everyone agrees with each other (and me) about this.






Image upload: 373x377 totaling 67 KB's.

well, the idea that the system is perfect is not true whatsoever.... there are definitely places to fix things. Costs are rising too quickly and need to be dealt with. There are a lot of people without insurance that I'm sure would like some.

However, I dislike the idea of a forced insurance program. There are plenty of 18-30 year olds who don't want or need insurance. They don't get sick often enough for insurance to be worthwhile for them.

I think if you truly want to reform healthcare/insurance you need to do it in small incremental steps. This enormous health care bill that is too long to read and is going to add a trillion dollars to the debt is the wrong way to go.

Well, since it isn't finalized yet I cannot make a honest choice. We don't know what will be in the final bill, and a lot of stuff that people are still going on about have been tossed awhile ago. However, I am 100% for reform, and I don't think that makes me a socialist. I realize this is in the conservative area, but really? That amount of bias is just sad. Also, I agree that this should be in debate.

I agree with Elara about the fact that being for reform doesn't make you socialist. There are parts of the bill that could be deemed more socialist but wanting to improve health care is not socialist in nature.

And I personally don't see a lot of bias.

Not wanting the governments hands on more of the economy is just an opinion.

I mentioned a few things that I've heard proposed as possibilities that I'm against.

I think Elara needs to get off the bias bandwagon.

The bias I was referring to was the "if you're not conservative you're a socialist" statement.

Originally posted by ICEman64

---

IOur health care system is already the best in the world,

---

Wait... are we about the amercian health care system?
 
Ok, sorry, it's a good health care system, but the best in the world?How about scandinavian countries? How about Australia, France, Japan?

The WHO ranked countries by "overall health care performance"; USA is 37th. (to be fair they are 1st for "best responsivness")

Do yourself a favor and watch the Micheal Moore documetary called Sicko. While you shouldn't trust Moore documentaries 100%, it'll at least give you a glimps of what things are really like.   

1. Michael Moore should never be referenced when trying to deal with facts.

2. People come from all over the world to have medical procedures performed in the US. That has to count for something.



I do think that the US health care could be improved.... most health care systems could be imrpoved.

There are always cases that can be found to show that things aren't perfect... but for every case you can find in the US there are just as many in other countries.

[edit] something I hate about the health care system in my country is that it seems to reward the sick.... I don't get any benefits for staying healthy. If I don't smoke, drink, do drugs... I drive safely, I dont' take risks, I maintain a healthy weight etc etc... I don't benefit one bit from that. My "health care premiums" (taxes) don't go down any just because I do those things. That is the thing that bugs me the most. The people who take care of themselves don't get anything for doing so.

Originally posted by geeogree

---

1. Michael Moore should never be referenced when trying to deal with facts.

2. People come from all over the world to have medical procedures performed in the US. That has to count for something.

---

1. Moore may not be the most factual producer but that movie does enlighten to a certain extent that the USA don't have the best system. What he says is partially creditble... about as bad as the evening news.

2. It does, it means they have some great doctors, not necissarily a great health care system. Also, 37th place isn't aweful.

A little side note about Moore:

I would be cautious about believing what Michael Moore shows you. This is the same guy that blamed Charlton Heston & Marilyn Manson & Walmart for Columbine. He is just a "Sicko" looking for money.

Anyway, continue the discussion with health care. I don't know anything about it my interests are on other things

Originally posted by JigSaw

---

A little side note about Moore:

I would be cautious about believing what Michael Moore shows you. This is the same guy that blamed Charlton Heston & Marilyn Manson & Walmart for Columbine. He is just a "Sicko" looking for money.

Anyway, continue the discussion with health care. I don't know anything about it my interests are on other things

---

Well thanks for that.

My argument was barely hanging on as it was, and you had to come kick it in the ribs. .
Just teasing man.


Alright guys, so forget Moore. I'm sticking with the WHO stats.

Stolen from a blog I read.... but it pretty much says what I want it to.

"I took my car in for an oil change. I didn’t make it for the early bird special and thus with tax and everything it cost $42 and some spare change. It took about 15 minutes, the guy came in, tried to up-sell me on some window wipers which I declined and then off I went.

Juxtapose that with my visit to my new, most favorite doctor, Dr. Eelkema.

I don’t like him because he’s personable.

I don’t like him because he’s professional.


I don’t like him because he’s on time.

I like him because he’s cheap.

So cheap in fact that it cost me LESS TO VISIT HIM THAN TO GET MY OIL CHANGED.

I showed up, and with a militant level of adherence to time he was ready for our appointment. Checked a couple things, took my blood pressure, diagnosed my problems and BOOM, I was out the door. And the price for this standard doctor’s visit?

$38 and spare change. AND less time than it took to get my oil changed.

It was one of those times where you were happy to pay because the deal you got provided more utility than the price you even paid.

The question is how does Dr. Eelkema do it?


Simple, he got rid of the insurance companies, thereby eliminating a huge amount of overhead, time and paper work, only takes cash payment and makes you sign a waiver essentially saying you won’t sue.

Amazing.

You eliminate three things – insurance companies, collection problems and lawsuits/lawyers – and the cost of a doctor’s visit drops to $38.

Now it could be because Dr. Eelkema is an older gentleman and maybe he has earned his fortunes and can afford to run his practice that cheaply. Perhaps he is just getting older and as one ages time becomes more valuable than money. But it still couldn’t prevent my economic spidey senses from thinking about what would happen if instead of the 2,000 page health care reform monstrosity Obama/Pelosi/Reid are trying to ram down America’s throat we did a Dr. Eelkema Health Care style reform. That instead treating health insurance like a right, we treat it more like car insurance. You pay OUT OF POCKET expenses for regular maintenance of your car such as oil changes, tire replacement, batteries, etc, just like you would regular maintenance on your body (check ups, visits, tests, etc). However, you only have insurance should a catastrophe occur. You crash your car, the insurance company pays for its repair or an entire new one. You crash your body, the health insurance kicks in to repair you. And what amazes me is that if you’re in reasonably decent shape your health insurance and general health expenditures on YOU will cost the same, if not LESS THAN YOUR CAR, BUT THAT'S IF YOU'RE USING A DOCTOR LIKE DR.EELKEMA.


In otherwords, Dr. Eelkema is the empirical proof of "what could be" or what the REAL costs of health care are if you get rid of insurance companies, lawyers, lawsuits, and government. That $38 is what you really have to pay. Not the $200, the majority of which goes to other entities that have NOTHING to do with your health care except to make it more expensive.

But, I know, I know. We’ve all been told health care is a right (forget the fact rights don’t cost anything while health care is a commodity no matter what anybody tells you). And it’s a tragedy if a single mom of 6 children from 6 different fathers has to pay a $15 copay for each of them. And it’s a travesty if a union member has to pay a copay at all. Matter of fact it’s dictatorial totalitarianism if you have to spend a single penny on your own health care. And besides, we have to make sure all those lawyers have plenty of money coming their way, not to mention government bureaucrats need jobs too and taking over 1/6th of the economy will certainly help with that.

But the simple problem is health care reform is just like tax reform. The American people are just too damn brainwashed or perhaps too damn stupid to think that it can be that simple. You can have a flat sales tax or the 13,000 page tax code, just like you can have Obamacare or EelkemaCare.


Enjoy fighting for Obamacare. "

First, since power over health care is not designated specifically to the federal government under the constitution, they would need to amend the constitution for any of this to even be legitimate.

Let's assume they make it legitimate, this brings me to my second point. They are obviously corrupt, and have no intention of using this to help anyone except whoever is in their inner circle.

Now let's assume they have legitimacy and good intentions. The federal government is a huge entity, and will therefor have serious problems ironing out the details, and the plan would, therefor, fail because of inefficiency.

I'm glad for healthy debate, but please don't ever say that the health care is not socialist - because it is!

so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm)
n.
1.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

I would say that the health care plan, which is going to give much more control to the federal government, is a step towards socialism. Especially if the public option is part of the final plan.

My brother is quite "into" governmental systems and such, (the other day he came in with a 600 page book called "the rise and fall of communism"... I laughed haha) so I asked his opinion on this. He wrote me a text that I will now copy and paste:

"Seeing as the USA has no socialized health care system or SHCS, as it will be refered to in this text, many hospitals are privately owned. Thus, money that is paid to these private companies and owners is defused to the rich business world whereas tax money that is paid to the government is not used to pay for citizen's health care through a
SHCS. Despite the absence of this expensive system and high tax rates, the American government is severely in debt. The reason for this debt is, primarily, the US's debt to China but is also due to the money that is poured into big business. This money is horded and used to increase business leaders' salaries rather than to benefit the people.
This truly shows the feebleness of the American Government's economy while also showing the power of the big American companies. To add to these enterprises' income is the money Americans pay to private hospitals rather than taxes paying for a service that should be free.
The people do not control the money flow, the government does not control the money flow, so who does? This answer is self-explanatory. Furthermore, the quality of the capitalist health care system of the USA, as opposed to a SHCS is usually about the same, if not worse. Exempli Gratia: in Cuba, there are more physicians per citizen, the price of medication is much lower, and medical establishments are far more popular. This in a poor Caribean country, under a dictatorship yet good health care thanks to a SHCS. In Canada, we also have a SHCS and our medical treatment is equal if not better than that of the USA and we pay for it through taxes which are around equal to those in
the States. All in all, we aren't noticably really paying for it at all. Besides, if a poor individual requires medical care, he can acquire it free of charge and still have enough money to pay his taxes which will go to, perhaps, helping to apprehend a criminal or another government-funded operation. This scenario goes to show that the SHCS allws for the responsible distribution of funds to other government-fund based orginazations and operations.

In conclusion, a SHCS is, in concoordance with a country's needs, the most resonable and advantageous way to fund medical estableshments, as is shown by the example of Canada and the United States.


Regards, C13g3 "

My brother's thought on the matter, I'm not commenting on it (not really interested in that stuff as much).

I know he texted that to you.... but that answer is far too simplified for this debate. There are some assumptions in his post that aren't true and some of the things he says are exaggerated or just ignorant.

The idea that Cuban health care is equal to or better than American health care is idiotic. No rational person honestly believes that and I doubt anyone could prove it either.

However, in the end I think the solution for health care is not Government Bureaucracy but instead the removal of the insurance company from the day to day care of people. Why is an insurance company paying for you to see your doctor for you annual checkup? The car insurance company doesn't pay to change your oil or rotate your tires.... it also doesn't pay up when your brakes stop working. Why not treat health insurance the way we treat car or home insurance.... you pay the "maintenance" costs and the insurance covers the "unforseen" or excessive costs.


Oh, and the idea that Canadian health care is better than American obviously hasn't spent a lot of time in a Canadian hospital. Someone died just the other day in the emergency room waiting area. He waited for 37 hours to see a doctor and never saw one.

The other thing about a socialized health care plan that I despise is the idea that I'm paying the same "premium" as someone else who lives a much riskier life style than I do. I should not pay the same amount towards my health care that someone like that does. That makes no sense.

I was just watching CNN and guess what????

If you don't have health insurance by 2014 they will start fining you!

2014 the fine is $95.
2015 the fine jumps to around $400
2016 the fine is around $700

Hooray for taxing Americans who don't want/need health insurance.

I can't wait to find out what else has been tucked away in this "reform" bill that will force people to pay for things they don't want.