As many of you have been following, "Hillarycare" or whatever it is called might come into effect next year. Obama's health care policy is very similar to Mrs. Clinton's and will end up the same, socialized. I am not sure if the rest of you have grasped the concept of what this will mean. If you know anyone living in western Europe or Canada please ask them how they feel. I have an uncle who is in his 40's, lives in Scotland and within the last 5 years been battling the aftermath of a major stroke. When he needs to see a doctor he gets put on a waiting list, waiting sometimes up to 6 months to see a doctor. It is the same with dental. Imagine having a broken arm and having to wait to go see a doctor, or a tooth ache and having to wait.
If this goes though there is no turning back. You cannot reverse something like this once it has been passed. Picture it this way... Would you want government bureau's controlling health care? the same people who run the god awful DMV? You may say health insurance is too expensive or inconvenient. If the government takes away health insurance and runs a publicly funded healthcare program we are all in deep deep trouble. Imagine if cell phones and cell services were controlled by a government bureau, do you think you would have your sidekick 3's and your blackberry smart phones? Heck no, you would have some 1990 brick looking phone with a huge antenna on it, limited features and terrible service. The reason why is because the government has no competitors, no sprint, no AT&T, no one making new technology and lower prices to have the edge on the competitor. Is this the way you want your healthcare? One of the most important things in your life controlled by a bureau with no competition?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I have never thought about it like that but I think you're right. Without competitors they can do whatever they want!! now im scared!
Andrew, I think that it is important that people should know. When you post you use very little, if any factual evidence. But I guess it still counts as a posting. News flash I've paid for my families health care for years now and guess what it is as you say, sometimes it takes a few months to get in. Heaven forbid you miss your appointment then it will be six months and I have a very good heath insurance.
Also can you give me the source of your information on Mrs. Clinton's and Mr. Obama'S, heath care policy. I would like to read if they are infact alike, or is this just an "Emotionally Charged Statement?"
When I had insurance I never had to wait that long for an appointment anywhere. I never waited longer than 2 weeks unless there was a schedule conflict on my part.
As of right now I don't have insurance so I don't go to the doctor or anything like that but what if something happened? I don't like the thought of having to waits months.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/
Shes dressing it up with other words that are synonyms for the words everyone dreads , socialized health care.
I got dropped from my mothers insurance so i am working on getting my own. Apparently i was a liability to their money. There are plenty of affordable alternatives and yes the healthcare system in the US needs major help, but it does not need to be re-made into a socialized government controlled solution. Why make the people who can afford it suffer for the minute people who cant. We need to make a program specifically for those who cannot afford quality health care. When they say "free" healthcare it is not free. You will be paying for it from your tax money.
Andrew, there are quite a few logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies in what you are saying here.
>Obama's health care policy is very similar to Mrs. Clinton's and will end up the same, socialized.
Neither plan is even remotely socialized. In a socialized system, there is no private insurance and no private practice, all medical personnel work directly for the government. Clinton's plan doesn't move even slightly in this direction, which is why many liberals, and all socialists, are critical of her plan. Her plan would keep the existing health care system we have and then greatly expand tax credits to help people and businesses afford to pay for private insurance. It would also increase the number of people eligible for Medicare, which is a single-payer system, closer to socialized medicine than private practice, but still not a socialized system.
>If you know anyone living in western Europe or Canada please ask them how they feel.
You are using the anecdotal evidence fallacy here, among others. While I don't doubt what you say about your uncle is true, it's clear that this isn't the case for most people in these countries. I could counter by offering my own anecdote, since my father is Canadian and he recently moved back to Canada because the health care here was inferior and more expensive. That doesn't prove anything, though, since it is still just one anecdote. But there is evidence to answer your question. One quick example would be this survey taken in the U.S. and six other countries, including Canada and several in Europe (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/surveys/surveys_show.htm?doc_id=568326). In every country in the survey -- all of which have more socialized systems than we do -- citizens of those countries are much more satisfied with their system than we are. In Canada, for instance, only 12% of the people think that their system needs a major overhaul, in the U.S., that number is 34%. In the Netherlands, one of the most socialized systems in the survey, 42% of citizens are almost completely satisfied with their system. In the U.S., that number is 16%.
>I have an uncle who is in his 40's, lives in Scotland and within the last 5 years been battling the aftermath of a major stroke. When he needs to see a doctor he gets put on a waiting list, waiting sometimes up to 6 months to see a doctor. It is the same with dental. Imagine having a broken arm and having to wait to go see a doctor, or a tooth ache and having to wait.
The problem with this is that you are mixing and matching things. I'll wager no one in Scotland is waiting six months to fix a broken arm. You are mixing emergency care with preventive and maintenance care. I've seen no evidence to suggest that there are waiting lists anywhere in the modern industrialized world for emergency care. And in the U.S., if you have no insurance and the problem isn't an emergency, you wait much longer than six months to get care -- you don't get it at all.
>If this goes though there is no turning back. You cannot reverse something like this once it has been passed.
This is completely wrong. Any law that is passed by Congress can be unpassed by Congress. It could also be overturned by the courts as unconstitutional.
>Would you want government bureau's controlling health care?
We already have socialized health care in the U.S. The VA system is 100% socialized. Ask the average veteran and you'll find that their care is more than satisfactory.
>the same people who run the god awful DMV?
But it wouldn't be the same people at all. Saying that all government employees are the same is like saying that all students are the same. Both statements are easy to prove false. Besides, everyone in the military is a government employee. All police and fire fighters are government employees. And all of your teachers are government employees. Did you actually mean to imply that all of these peopel are "god awful," too?
>If the government takes away health insurance and runs a publicly funded healthcare program we are all in deep deep trouble.
But this isn't what is being proposed. Under either Clinton or Obama's plan, nobody's private health insurance would be taken away.
>Imagine if cell phones and cell services were controlled by a government bureau, do you think you would have your sidekick 3's and your blackberry smart phones?
They are regulated by a government agency much more than health care would be under these plans.
>The reason why is because the government has no competitors
In the current health system, insurance providers and hospitals/doctors do have competition and we actually have, by far, the worst health care in the modern industrialized world. And we pay the most in taxpayer and private funds. Yet we get the worst care. I'm not saying that I endorse either plan -- I don't -- but it's clear there is a problem.
>no one making new technology and lower prices to have the edge on the competitor.
The police don't have a competitor. The fire department doesn't have a competitor. The military doesn't have a competitor. Lack of competition can reduce incentives to provide a valuable service, but it doesn't guarantee such a thing. Just as competition isn't a guarantee of quality.
>http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't actually read this link, but instead got your information elsewhere, such as television or radio. Because what you say here doesn't even remotely match what is on this web page.
>Shes dressing it up with other words that are synonyms for the words everyone dreads , socialized health care.
There is no evidence to suggest that everyone, or even most people, dread socialized services. The military, the police and fire fighters are all part of socialized systems and very few people seem to dread them.
>When they say "free" healthcare it is not free. You will be paying for it from your tax money.
Nobody is saying "free" healthcare. And 100% of the people without healthcare pay taxes, too, so it's their tax money as well.
Smith, if read your book many Americans can't afford good health care. However as you put it in your response it would lead many to think that only a few can't afford health care. Often I have volunteered, walking door to door helping children and their families the medical help they needed or getting them to sign up for free health care for their children. I don't think that you would be amazed at the number of people localy who are not able to afford health care. Smith, I do however expect your response to be something along these line: They should just get better jobs or better benefits! They would not be in this stituation if they would just stop having so many children! Maybe they should have paid more attention in school or they should have gone to college! I have to pay for I WANT why can't they Pay for What They NEED! If any of these statements make you say Ya or I agree, then you have issues that are truly beyond the scope of this class and I will pray for you seriously.
I am aware of the VA medical system. Does anyone on here have a family member who uses this? If so, please do tell how they/you feel about it. From what i hear it is one of the worst government controlled systems in America right now. I for one agree that insurance companies and doctors make WAY too much money on healthcare, but there has to be another way besides drastically changing the healthcare system in America. Why tax majority the middle class people who can afford healthcare to help a small amount of people (compared to the middle/upper class). If this does go through is anyone aware of how much of our tax paying dollar will fund this "project". I just cant justify a VERY expensive program for such a small amount of people who "cant afford health insurance" the most important insurance you need.
Yeah you may have a choice between the two, but you will be "mandated" to have insurance of some sort. So for mass majority of people who can afford real insurance we get taxed, so that the lower class can have their government insurance. The majority of America is paying MAJOR for something they aren't even going to use. I wonder what the penalty is if you don't have either. Clinton stated in a speech in Iowa that Obama's plan is like hers, but it wont cover 15 million Americans. So if Obama wins, the middle and upper class will be paying for a program to that wont only suit them, it wont cover 15 million other people. There just has to be a cheaper, more efficient alternative.
Andrew, Let me just start by saying wow. After all that Mr. Q., have just laid out to you atleast take the time to research the facts. Q, not only laid it out for you. He even Spelled it out for you, and I must say once again I find your responses to be merily, firing back words and not well thought through factual information at all. Answer this one thing, "up until this point have you even read Obama's health care perposel?" If not it is absurd to take such a dug-in stance on something you Don't even know.
Just because you asked I, will tell you I know about the V.A. hospital first hand, as I have said before I, am a Marine. Some years ago I went to the T.M.H ER, a couple different times with what felt like maybe a heart attack, on three different occautions they could not tell me of any problem although I had spent many thousands of dollars on ER visits, blood work and many, many other expesive test. So one day I, decided to go see a V.A. doctor, I told them the same thing that I told T.M.H. doctors, after our talk they did some blood work and an "Ultra sound" of my lower abdamin and my torso. He came back and showed me the problem with in 30min. The next week I was in surgery, having gall stones removed. I, can't say for everyone but as for me they were a blessing!
>I am aware of the VA medical system. Does anyone on here have a family member who uses this? If so, please do tell how they/you feel about it. From what i hear it is one of the worst government controlled systems in America right now.
Not according to any evidence I've seen. The average veteran, according to most polls, is very happy with his or her VA hospital experience. There were some significant problems at Walter Reed Hospital a few years ago, but that isn't part of the VA system, it's party of the Army. If you go back to the 1970s, there were widespread problems with the VA system, but they have been fixed for the most part.
>I for one agree that insurance companies and doctors make WAY too much money on healthcare, but there has to be another way besides drastically changing the healthcare system in America.
But no one is proposing drastic changes. The health care plans offered by all three presidential candidates are minor tweaks to the system.
>Why tax majority the middle class people who can afford healthcare to help a small amount of people (compared to the middle/upper class).
But you can't isolate taxes like this. Income taxes don't go to one particular program or another, they go to the overall budget. And it's overwhelmingly clear that everyone in America will get more benefit from the taxes they pay in than they will ever pay for. For most people, one government-funded road (like the one from home to school) cost more than the amount of taxes you'll pay in your entire life. And that's just one road. That doesn't even get into the cost of the other roads, street lights, police protection, national defense, air traffic control, school buildings, etc., that are all created by the government and we all use.
>If this does go through is anyone aware of how much of our tax paying dollar will fund this "project". I just cant justify a VERY expensive program for such a small amount of people who "cant afford health insurance" the most important insurance you need.
I didn't see a number, but based on the details I read, it seems that most of the cost will be borne by private individuals, not taxpayer funds and it won't be a particularly expensive program, and definitely not "very" expensive by any definition.
>The majority of America is paying MAJOR for something they aren't even going to use.
But this misses two things. The first is that we already pay for people who are uninsured. They don't go without medical care, they use the emergency room for medical care and can't be refused under federal law. When they use that emergency room, they rarely, if ever, pay the money for the services received. Second, when people use the emergency room, they are getting medical care at the absolutely most expensive possible time, so not only are we paying for it, we're paying the most we could possibly pay for it. Third, high levels of uninsurance lead to higher worker absenteeism, lower productivity, less tax revenue, a worse economy, higher crime, lower levels of education and other problems. So while most people won't directly use such a medical insurance program, they will all benefit from it.
>So if Obama wins, the middle and upper class will be paying for a program to that wont only suit them, it wont cover 15 million other people. There just has to be a cheaper, more efficient alternative.
There probably is, but it isn't the one we're currently using, which doesn't cover 47 million people.
Post a Comment