The best health care in the world

[Openmind]

So are these costs cheaper or not than they otherwise would be under the current system?

Those costs ARE the current "for profit system!"

What about, instead of just listening to the right propaganda about health care, you start doing a little research of your own.

I am providing as many factual links as I can, trying to demonstrate that, the current system forces the price of caring (and not so well!) for the non-insured on the insured, and that this is one major factor that drives the price of private insurance that high. . .because instead of being distributed over the WHOLEL population, it is divided ONLY over the people who are insured.

I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that!

Could you tell me WHY it would be such a huge drama to allow people to join in an "extended" medicare coverage (extended to increasingly younger population. . .maybe in a first step, bring the age of medicare eligibility to 60, then 50, then 40, then finally to ANYONE), and adjust the price of medicare for those "younger" population based on a means test?

All of that, as AN OPTION, leaving everyone the choice to continue with their private insurance if they choose.

 

[dogtowner]

T
I am providing as many factual links as I can, trying to demonstrate that, the current system forces the price of caring (and not so well!) for the non-insured on the insured, and that this is one major factor that drives the price of private insurance that high. . .because instead of being distributed over the WHOLEL population, it is divided ONLY over the people who are insured.

only about 10% are not insured according to the numbers bandied about. thats about as "spread" as you can hope for,

I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that!

me either

Could you tell me WHY it would be such a huge drama to allow people to join in an "extended" medicare coverage (extended to increasingly younger population. . .maybe in a first step, bring the age of medicare eligibility to 60, then 50, then 40, then finally to ANYONE), and adjust the price of medicare for those "younger" population based on a means test?

All of that, as AN OPTION, leaving everyone the choice to continue with their private insurance if they choose.

why should we pay for the care PLUS the overhead PLUS all the incidental nice to have care that they would absorm since its "free".

But more to the point is, this is even less constitutional than MEDICARE already is. If you want to go that way, first change the Constitution .

 

[GenSeneca]

All of that, as AN OPTION, leaving everyone the choice to continue with their private insurance if they choose.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that you have a problem with WalMart because you believe they drive the "Mom and Pop" stores out of business... If that's the case, then tell me what it is they do that makes it so the smaller businesses are unable to compete. Before you mention that WalMart is non union, I'd like to point out that "Mom and Pop" stores aren't know for having unions either, so in that regard both businesses are on equal playing fields.

 

[Openmind]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that you have a problem with WalMart because you believe they drive the "Mom and Pop" stores out of business... If that's the case, then tell me what it is they do that makes it so the smaller businesses are unable to compete. Before you mention that WalMart is non union, I'd like to point out that "Mom and Pop" stores aren't know for having unions either, so in that regard both businesses are on equal playing fields.

The LIFE of people doesn't depend on having access to a can of beans $.10 cheaper at wall mart.

As I've said before, I do not believe that the health and life of people is an appropriate place to exercise one's greed.

And, if you show me where a "mom and pop" business create survives on private insurance, your argument might be more valid (although NOT more valid than reasonable access to healthcare for all!), but I don't think that Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, or Cigna, or any of the other GIANTS qualify!

If you go down that road, why isn't our military force "privatized" to "mom and pop's store?". (oh, wait, we're going that way, "pop halliburton" may soon put the Pentagon out of business!

 

[GenSeneca]

As I've said before, I do not believe that the health and life of people is an appropriate place to exercise one's greed.

What do you consider "greed" to be?

What is an appropriate word for the act of taking from someone else what you haven't earned and doesn't belong to you?

 

[Openmind]

What do you consider "greed" to be?

What is an appropriate word for the act of taking from someone else what you haven't earned and doesn't belong to you?

The drive to make profit from a person's suffering and a person's right to live and seek health care is GREED.

Wanting to make such high profits that it puts other people's life and/or heath in jeopardy is greed.

An appropriate word for the action of taking a small portion of someone's EXCESSIVE wealth in order to assist those who do not have the ability to fulfill their basic needs is FAIRNESS based on HUMAN CONSCIENCiOUSNESS.

The concept of allowing an ever smaller minority of people to get ever wealthier in a society where wealth is finite therefore to satisfy that EVER GROWING desire to grab resources (both human and natura) to satisfy one's never ending hunger for MORE wealth, is GREED and it is not only very destructive to society, it is also, in the long term, unsustainable.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that you have a problem with WalMart because you believe they drive the "Mom and Pop" stores out of business... If that's the case, then tell me what it is they do that makes it so the smaller businesses are unable to compete. Before you mention that WalMart is non union, I'd like to point out that "Mom and Pop" stores aren't know for having unions either, so in that regard both businesses are on equal playing fields.

combination of volume discount and the convenience of one stop shopping. I used to have a small business that Walmart hurt.

 

[BigRob]

Those costs ARE the current "for profit system!"

What about, instead of just listening to the right propaganda about health care, you start doing a little research of your own.

I am providing as many factual links as I can, trying to demonstrate that, the current system forces the price of caring (and not so well!) for the non-insured on the insured, and that this is one major factor that drives the price of private insurance that high. . .because instead of being distributed over the WHOLEL population, it is divided ONLY over the people who are insured.

I am not sure what is so hard to understand about that!

Could you tell me WHY it would be such a huge drama to allow people to join in an "extended" medicare coverage (extended to increasingly younger
population. . .maybe in a first step, bring the age of medicare eligibility to 60, then 50, then 40, then finally to ANYONE), and adjust the price of medicare for those "younger" population based on a means test?

All of that, as AN OPTION, leaving everyone the choice to continue with their
private insurance if they choose.

I guess you are missing the crux of my question. I do not dispute that insured who truly cannot pay end up having their bills paid by those of us with insurance through higher
premiums etc.

My question, which has not been answered, is this:
Is it cheaper to pay a higher premium because of this, or is it cheaper to pay higher premiums under an ObamaCare type system?

Basically, prove to me that implementing ObamaCare will cost me less than not implementing it. For example, is it cheaper to amputate one foot of a guy who didn't have care, or is it cheaper to pay for 10,000 people to get preventative care on their feet?

I don't know the answer, and no one seems to be able to show me numbers that this system will cost me less money.

And spare me the social justice argument, because I don't fundamentally care, what I do care about, and can easiy get behind, is a program that will cost me less money. Will this program do that? Yes (prove it) or no (then why are we doing it)?

 

[Openmind]

I guess you are missing the crux of my question. I do not dispute that insured who truly cannot pay end up having their bills paid by those of us with insurance through higher
premiums etc.

My question, which has not been answered, is this:
Is it cheaper to pay a higher premium because of this, or is it cheaper to pay higher premiums under an ObamaCare type system?

Basically, prove to me that implementing ObamaCare will cost me less than not implementing it. For example, is it cheaper to amputate one foot of a guy who didn't have care, or is it cheaper to pay for 10,000 people to get preventative care on their feet?

I don't know the answer, and no one seems to be able to show me numbers that this system will cost me less money.

And spare me the social justice argument, because I don't fundamentally care, what I do care about, and can easiy get behind, is a program that will cost me less money. Will this program do that? Yes (prove it) or no (then why are we doing it)?

I don't believe this question! Are you really trying to focus this question ONLY on COST?

Is it cheaper to provide preventive care for 10,000 people, so they keep their ability to walk, so they do not need a prothesis, so they can continue to do their job without a wheelchair?

Or is it cheaper to pay for 500 people's amputation, pay for prothesis or wheelchairs, and take into account the human cost of it?

Give me a break! YOU, Bob, are not really asking that question! I know you have more humanity than that!

How much is YOUR foot worth? Do you think the brick layer's foot is worth less than yours?

And, by the way. . .MANY countries have shown that it is cheaper to have universal health care than to limit our health care to "private health care only for some people" and government care for the most costly population.

I did explain that several times. . .I am sure if you read through those posts carefully, you can figure it out.

In summary: it is cheaper (per capita) to cover EVERYONE, of EVERY age and health condition with a "medicare" or "non-profit" type insurance than it is to add the cost of Medicare and Medicaid for the 'HIGH RISK" population AND add the premium paid to private insurance by both independents and their employers.

There is NO WAY you can show otherwise. . .or our country just doesn't know how to manage health care any other way as a VERY profitable business, where ONLY the wealthy matter, and the rest is disposable.

Look at the cost of per capita health care in countries that do provide universal health care (of any kind, government only, or a combination of both government and private) and the per capita health care in OUR country!

And tell me that there is anything more to prove!

 

[GenSeneca]

...a person's right to live...

We do not have a "right to live" we have a right to life.

... in a society where wealth is finite...

The entire foundation of your belief system is built on fallacy.

 

[GenSeneca]

An appropriate word for the action of taking a small portion of someone's EXCESSIVE wealth in order to assist those who do not have the ability to fulfill their basic needs is FAIRNESS based on HUMAN CONSCIENCiOUSNESS.

The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth. It’s that you have a duty to spend some irreplaceable part of your life laboring, not for the sake of your own life and happiness, but for the sake of others. If you are productive and self-supporting, then according to the entitlement state, you are in hock to those who aren’t.

 

[dogtowner]

An appropriate word for the action of taking a small portion of someone's EXCESSIVE wealth in order to assist those who do not have the ability to fulfill their basic needs is FAIRNESS based on HUMAN CONSCIENCiOUSNESS.

or as someone else put it "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The concept of allowing an ever smaller minority of people to get ever wealthier in a society where wealth is finite therefore to satisfy that EVER GROWING desire to grab resources (both human and natura) to satisfy one's never ending hunger for MORE wealth, is GREED and it is not only very destructive to society, it is also, in the long term, unsustainable.

ok so if wealth is NOT finite then all bets are off ? it is not finote.

 

[Openmind]

We do not have a "right to live" we have a right to life.


The entire foundation of your belief system is built on fallacy.

Can you explain the MAJOR difference between a "right to live" and a "right to life?"

How does the "right to pursue happiness" work. . .when one is dying and not receiving health care?

MY foundation is built on fallacy?

Well, I think YOUR foundation is built on fallacy! What difference does that make? You think I'm wrong, but at least I am at peace with my conscience! I think YOU"RE wrong, and believe it or not, my opinion is as valuable and as worthy as yours!

 

[Openmind]

or as someone else put it "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."




Ok so if wealth is NOT finite then all bets are off ? it is not finote.

And all this time I thought you were against the Feds printing more money?

And all this time I thought you made fun of me when I mentionned "velocity of money," which is the only way to use multiplicators to make money go further!

 

[dogtowner]

And all this time I thought you were against the Feds printing more money?

And all this time I thought you made fun of me when I mentionned "velocity of money," which is the only way to use multiplicators to make money go further!

the feds printing money is not wealth, its more akin to the opposite as it makes whatever wealth one has earned less valuable. So you see that the notion of multipliers is predicated on foolish notions.