NationStates

Ashmoria wrote:

Geanna wrote:
Then me for example - After having surgery - I lost my job, then my health insurance. I'm now either too rich or too poor to be eligible for Medicade, Medicare, or Obamacare - so essentially I've been royally fucked.

Universal Healthcare is nice - however, I don't see how it is applicable to privatized hospitals due to a conflict of interests.

many of the republican governors who rejected the Medicaid expansion are starting to think about accepting it (since it is an utter disaster for their states as you well know).

it is baffling to me that politicians can choose to screw over their people they way yours are screwing you.

Indeed - I work, pay my taxes and follow the law - yet me among others are the ones who take the blunt end. Either I choose food or health insurance, and getting Obamacare isn't going to guarantee my ability to receive care - as the hospital and state I reside in is fighting it and threatening to up premiums or have their doctors straight up refuse those holding Obamacare. I'd have to literally travel 300 miles north to get care because the hospital near me has threatened to deny Obamacare - and owns one of the largest hospital conglomerates that stretches through-out the state. So *knocks on wood* may we hope my income rises enough to be included into the assistance program and I don't become sick further til then.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:They obviously can with competition and a wider array of customer choice. If we look at Hong Kong or Singapore, both of which have an unregulated healthcare private sector, competition within the sector has driven down prices and increased the quality of healthcare amongst the populace of the respective city-states. Lichtenstein also has free-market healthcare, and the quality is great whilst the price is low. America's problem is that there are regulations on the HealthCare Sectors and healthcare companies can't compete across state lines, which increases prices. If we can eliminate the regulations, we can mimic the effect that free market healthcare has had on Singapore, Hong Kong and Lichtenstein.

You know what those three nations have in common?

Small moderately rich populations.

Geanna wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:
many of the republican governors who rejected the Medicaid expansion are starting to think about accepting it (since it is an utter disaster for their states as you well know).

it is baffling to me that politicians can choose to screw over their people they way yours are screwing you.

Indeed - I work, pay my taxes and follow the law - yet me among others are the ones who take the blunt end. Either I choose food or health insurance, and getting Obamacare isn't going to guarantee my ability to receive care - as the hospital and state I reside in is fighting it and threatening to up premiums or have their doctors straight up refuse those holding Obamacare. I'd have to literally travel 300 miles north to get care because the hospital near me has threatened to deny Obamacare - and owns one of the largest hospital conglomerates that stretches through-out the state. So *knocks on wood* may we hope my income rises enough to be included into the assistance program and I don't become sick further til then.

its crazy to treat people this way. you pay taxes so that people in other states can get the deal they are denying you.

Given the formidable failings of the free market for America, I think that the evidence speaks for itself.

Ashmoria wrote:

Geanna wrote:
Indeed - I work, pay my taxes and follow the law - yet me among others are the ones who take the blunt end. Either I choose food or health insurance, and getting Obamacare isn't going to guarantee my ability to receive care - as the hospital and state I reside in is fighting it and threatening to up premiums or have their doctors straight up refuse those holding Obamacare. I'd have to literally travel 300 miles north to get care because the hospital near me has threatened to deny Obamacare - and owns one of the largest hospital conglomerates that stretches through-out the state. So *knocks on wood* may we hope my income rises enough to be included into the assistance program and I don't become sick further til then.

its crazy to treat people this way. you pay taxes so that people in other states can get the deal they are denying you.

See you should have with a Canadian universal healthcare system and banned private hospitals.

Ashmoria wrote:

Geanna wrote:
Indeed - I work, pay my taxes and follow the law - yet me among others are the ones who take the blunt end. Either I choose food or health insurance, and getting Obamacare isn't going to guarantee my ability to receive care - as the hospital and state I reside in is fighting it and threatening to up premiums or have their doctors straight up refuse those holding Obamacare. I'd have to literally travel 300 miles north to get care because the hospital near me has threatened to deny Obamacare - and owns one of the largest hospital conglomerates that stretches through-out the state. So *knocks on wood* may we hope my income rises enough to be included into the assistance program and I don't become sick further til then.

its crazy to treat people this way. you pay taxes so that people in other states can get the deal they are denying you.

Nah. You pay taxes so you can fuck over the guy halfway across the country that you never met.

Broke your leg? Not your problem, just ask society to fix it for you.

CTALNH wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:
its crazy to treat people this way. you pay taxes so that people in other states can get the deal they are denying you.

See you should have with a Canadian universal healthcare system and banned private hospitals.

of course

but we only got this much because nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house and could perform a miracle.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:
its crazy to treat people this way. you pay taxes so that people in other states can get the deal they are denying you.

Nah. You pay taxes so you can fuck over the guy halfway across the country that you never met.

Broke your leg? Not your problem, just ask society to fix it for you.

well no

states like louisiana pay for the national Medicaid expansion while rejecting it for Louisiana. meaning that large swaths of the state will get no insurance and go bankrupt over most anything that would require a hospital stay. at the same time their taxes will pay for the Medicaid expansion in Arkansas--one state away--so that a person in that state can have a devastating illness requiring months in the hospital and end up paying nothing for it.

I strongly disagree with the idea of free universal healthcare. Instead, I support a system where a universal basic standard of life is guaranteed for all citizens. This basically works like a mandatory insurance. The minimum salary is basically equal to this, so every employed person basically pays for themselves. Unemployed but able individuals receive aid until they get a job (which they are legally required to seek) ; unemployed but incapable individuals (elderly, disabled, gravely ill, etc.) receive aid indefinitely. To pay for the last 2 categories a progressive tax scheme exists.

Ashmoria wrote:

CTALNH wrote:See you should have with a Canadian universal healthcare system and banned private hospitals.

of course

but we only got this much because nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house and could perform a miracle.

Sometimes...actually always I think the american governing system is broken as fuck.

CTALNH wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:of course

but we only got this much because nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house and could perform a miracle.

Sometimes...actually always I think the american governing system is broken as fuck.

you are not the only one.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

Lalaki wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... _blog.html

Most countries with universal health care have shorter waiting periods than the United States. Canada happens to be an exception.

How about countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore with true, not phony free market healthcare?

You realize that HK offers guaranteed care frequently at no charge and that it's got more public hospitals than private, right? That's a degree of collectivization that very few in the US are proposing. It's certainly not government hands off.

Eric

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:I strongly disagree with the idea of free universal healthcare. Instead, I support a system where a universal basic standard of life is guaranteed for all citizens. This basically works like a mandatory insurance. The minimum salary is basically equal to this, so every employed person basically pays for themselves. Unemployed but able individuals receive aid until they get a job (which they are legally required to seek) ; unemployed but incapable individuals (elderly, disabled, gravely ill, etc.) receive aid indefinitely. To pay for the last 2 categories a progressive tax scheme exists.

and how would that help anyone who needs healthcare?

Universal healthcare under the free market model is impossible; charity is a necessity under that model, and I do not trust the fluctuations of personal altruism.

Ashmoria wrote:

CTALNH wrote:Sometimes...actually always I think the american governing system is broken as fuck.

you are not the only one.

Well besides the point that someone can get elected as president by only having 20% of the population voting for him.

CTALNH wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:you are not the only one.

Well besides the point that someone can get elected as president by only having 20% of the population voting for him.

sure but we get much closer to 50% of those who care enough to vote than many countries do. what percent of the voters voted for Cameron, abbot, harper, etc?

but its not our presidents that are the problem. not even W. the problem is the fucked up politics of congress. even way back in the '00s when they actually tried to get shit done it was far too much dominated by the politics of pleasing the rich donors. today they cant even bother to do that.

Ashmoria wrote:

CTALNH wrote:Well besides the point that someone can get elected as president by only having 20% of the population voting for him.

sure but we get much closer to 50% of those who care enough to vote than many countries do. what percent of the voters voted for Cameron, abbot, harper, etc?

but its not our presidents that are the problem. not even W. the problem is the fucked up politics of congress. even way back in the '00s when they actually tried to get shit done it was far too much dominated by the politics of pleasing the rich donors. today they cant even bother to do that.

Your political system needs to be at least overhauled to a European style democracy system.

CTALNH wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:
sure but we get much closer to 50% of those who care enough to vote than many countries do. what percent of the voters voted for Cameron, abbot, harper, etc?

but its not our presidents that are the problem. not even W. the problem is the fucked up politics of congress. even way back in the '00s when they actually tried to get shit done it was far too much dominated by the politics of pleasing the rich donors. today they cant even bother to do that.

Your political system needs to be at least overhauled to a European style democracy system.

nooooo we cant put up with that crap. it would make our heads explode (almost as much as if we suddenly instituted European employment rules).

we need to figure a way to regulate dark money. that would at least go a ways toward giving voters the information they need about who owns what politician.

Ashmoria wrote:

CTALNH wrote:Your political system needs to be at least overhauled to a European style democracy system.

nooooo we cant put up with that crap. it would make our heads explode (almost as much as if we suddenly instituted European employment rules).

we need to figure a way to regulate dark money. that would at least go a ways toward giving voters the information they need about who owns what politician.

You can't handle real politics?

Kelinfort wrote:Universal healthcare under the free market model is impossible; charity is a necessity under that model, and I do not trust the fluctuations of personal altruism.

It is true that finding people to be generous with OTHER people's money is more reliable.

CTALNH wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:nooooo we cant put up with that crap. it would make our heads explode (almost as much as if we suddenly instituted European employment rules).

we need to figure a way to regulate dark money. that would at least go a ways toward giving voters the information they need about who owns what politician.

You can't handle real politics?

nope

we can barely deal with 2 choices. when there are more we get all twitchy and screw it up (ex: the bizarre governor of maine who won with less than 40% of the vote)

Ashmoria wrote:

CTALNH wrote:You can't handle real politics?

nope

we can barely deal with 2 choices. when there are more we get all twitchy and screw it up (ex: the bizarre governor of maine who won with less than 40% of the vote)

You should come to greece this year was my first time that I could vote.

Do you know how many choices I had?

Over 50!

CTALNH wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:nope

we can barely deal with 2 choices. when there are more we get all twitchy and screw it up (ex: the bizarre governor of maine who won with less than 40% of the vote)

You should come to greece this year was my first time that I could vote.

Do you know how many choices I had?

Over 50!

technically I had probably ....8-10 choices on my ballot in '12. only the 2 major parties had any chance of winning so it was wise to ignore the rest. they are mostly nutz anyway.

Ashmoria wrote:

CTALNH wrote:

You should come to greece this year was my first time that I could vote.

Do you know how many choices I had?

Over 50!

technically I had probably ....8-10 choices on my ballot in '12. only the 2 major parties had any chance of winning so it was wise to ignore the rest. they are mostly nutz anyway.

In the european system anyone can win!Mostly if they get voted in.

Ashmoria wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:I strongly disagree with the idea of free universal healthcare. Instead, I support a system where a universal basic standard of life is guaranteed for all citizens. This basically works like a mandatory insurance. The minimum salary is basically equal to this, so every employed person basically pays for themselves. Unemployed but able individuals receive aid until they get a job (which they are legally required to seek) ; unemployed but incapable individuals (elderly, disabled, gravely ill, etc.) receive aid indefinitely. To pay for the last 2 categories a progressive tax scheme exists.

and how would that help anyone who needs healthcare?

I dont get your point. The govt is actively engaged in assuring a basic standard of living (to include healthcare) to everyone.