The best health care in the world

[bododie]

And you should be diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder for your constant meanness and ridiculous attempts to belittle people.

Lol. Again personality projection. Don't know much about psychology do you. All I am asking is that you read what is written, respond to what is written, and not blather on about what is not written.

I do not need a lesson from you on monopoly or health care. However, I have learned that when talking to people with a mind of a 10 year old, it is better to use a language that they can (maybe) understand.

Please point out which words in the post that you copied from me that I attempted to tell you anything about monopolies or health care?

constant meanness and ridiculous attempts to belittle people.

I have learned that when talking to people with a mind of a 10 year old, it is better to use a language that they can (maybe) understand.[/QUOTE

You DO need help with understanding the concept of hypocrisy!
I never claimed to suffer fools.

 

[BigRob]

Can you show me where a public OPTION has ever been proposed as a MONOPOLY?

Even the name contradict that statement!

It would be the only "option" that could operate on the national level that they need to allow regular health insurance companies to operate on.

So it would not be a total monopoly in the sense there are no other options period, it would monopolize the idea of competition on a national level.

Even in England, where the national health care is generalized to everyone, people still have a choice to go to a private doctor and a private hospital
!

The public option would have provided a cheaper alternative, just because the PROFIT would have been taken out of the bottom line.

Much like the post office? That operates not focused on profit, and is currently billions in debt and screaming for bailouts? You cannot operate at a loss forever, at some point the _____ hits the fan.

Then, the private health care could have competed with the non profit public option.... The most efficient and cheaper would have attracted the most customers.

No, for profit companies would still be bound by all this burdensome regulations that they currently deal with, and the "public option" would be operating a loss (courtesy of the taxpayer) and drive them right out of business.

It has worked for decades in other developed countries. . . And private Insurances have survived because they have adapted, offering competitive rate and/or "Fringe benefits.".

I don't think this is accurate...in the UK for example, are certain insurers only allowed to sell in certain areas, and if they want to expand do they run into a wall of regulations that explodes their costs?

If we want competition, let's allow it, by allowing insurers to sell everywhere (without all the burden) and allowing customers to choose.

 

[Dr.Who]

I am keenly aware of how other health care system function, having experienced personally at least 4 of them outside the US!

You are full of propaganda, but no facts!

Statistics are facts. I have often posted links to and can at any time.

Just understand that "the average Joe" is more than happy not to have to worry about paying a "private health care," and if they do want a second (or third or fourth) opinion from a "private, for profit" doctor, they can still do that, and still have access to their free health care.

There are plenty of people who are less satisfied with their health care than we are. When people are asked how they like the actual health care they get (rather than politicized questions) 89% of Americans are very satisfied ( the rest had verying levels of satisfaction). Even of the 46 million who supposedly have no health care 70% of them are very satisfied.

In most comparisons, Canadians were more satisfied than uninsured Americans, but just barely, and they were nowhere as satisfied as insured Americans.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...h-care-americans-happy-coverage#ixzz1YbYkEWE6
(dont like the source then read the same data from a different source. It will be the same)

And, countries like France, Belgium, and Italy DO HAVE A STRIVING private insurance business. . .BUT they have to compete with the governmental insurance, so they MUST keep their price competitive and/or offer "fringe benefits" (such as a week Summer camp on the seashore for the kids, or much reduce "Winter sport" fare for the kids, etc. . .).

I did not say that they did not. Are U.S. politicians holding up Belgium as an example to follow or are they holding up Canada and the UK?

AND, contrary to your uneducated statement, the cost of health care (private or governmental) in Belgium is at least 30% lower than in the US.

How could I make any uneducated statements about Belgium when I have said nothing about them?

What I said was that health care in the US would be more expensive. For clarification it would be more expensive than it is now and it would be more expensive than the other countries that presently are cheaper. What it will not do is become as cheap as they are.

 

[Dr.Who]

Can you show me where a public OPTION has ever been proposed as a MONOPOLY?

One part of the population will have to pay for it whether they use it or not. All the rest of the people won't have to pay but they will use it. Therefore all of the people will participate one way or another with the tiny exception of people who are too poor to pay but also choose not to use it (that group is most represented by people who are both poor and Christian Scientists. Not a very big demographic).

Clearly it is a virtual monopoly.

I would add that in the court brief in favor of the individual mandate they said that EVERYONE is a user of health care so ALL people participate in the system. They are saying that my demographic of people who are poor but don't use health care does not exist.

 

[Openmind]

One part of the population will have to pay for it whether they use it or not. All the rest of the people won't have to pay but they will use it. Therefore all of the people will participate one way or another with the tiny exception of people who are too poor to pay but also choose not to use it (that group is most represented by people who are both poor and Christian Scientists. Not a very big demographic).

Clearly it is a virtual monopoly.

I would add that in the court brief in favor of the individual mandate they said that EVERYONE is a user of health care so ALL people participate in the system. They are saying that my demographic of people who are poor but don't use health care does not exist.

So, you statement in bold seems to indicate that you don't realize that this is happening RIGHT NOW, and has been for ever! People who are able to pay private insurances are also paying for people who are NOT insured and wait to go to the emergency room when then need to. . .that is one item that raises the cost of insurance, whether private or not!

Christian scientists have much evolved over the last couple of decades, if you are one, you should know that.

No longer are they rejecting all medical care outright. . .they just try to live their life without health care. I know for a fact (because I had to advocate for one of my disabled client to be allowed to receive health care and mental health care, including medication) that the guidelines have stretched, and that a great number of Christian Scientists will access health care and mental health care when absolutely needed.

Now, whether a "religious exception" could be made in the mandate, I don't know, it may be logical. . .although if a child falls from a tree, and has internal bleeding that could kill that child, the parents (Christian Scientists or not. . .) if they have half a brain will access health care.

 

[Dr.Who]

So, you statement in bold seems to indicate that you don't realize that this is happening RIGHT NOW, and has been for ever! .

You are right that everyone has had access to health care for a long time. Which is why we we do not need to change the system based on any false notion that there are people who do not have access to health care.

Being forced to actually pay for a system of health insurance is not the same as having higher prices because the doctor one chooses is compassionate and offers his care care for free at times. But I bet one could find doctors who did not offer care to the poor and thus would not have higher costs as a result.

If one did use a doctor who did not offer pro bono care one would not be paying for others healthcare. The fact that none of us knows anyone who would do such a thing just means that fears of people not receiving care are unfounded. If the cost of pro bono work really drove up the cost that much (which it does not) then these rotten doctors would probably advertise that they are cheaper because they cut these costs.

In the traditional system everyone is taken care of but no ones rights are violated. In the proposed system everyone receives care, with gov denying care at times, and no one* has the right to opt out.

*Well since you are beginning to debate if there should be a religious exemption for a few it might be virtually no one rather than an actual no one. It is scary that we would even need to have a debate to see if some people might be allowed to not pay or get health care.

 

[Openmind]

You are right that everyone has had access to health care for a long time. Which is why we we do not need to change the system based on any false notion that there are people who do not have access to health care.

Being forced to actually pay for a system of health insurance is not the same as having higher prices because the doctor one chooses is compassionate and offers his care care for free at times. But I bet one could find doctors who did not offer care to the poor and thus would not have higher costs as a result.

If one did use a doctor who did not offer pro bono care one would not be paying for others healthcare. The fact that none of us knows anyone who would do such a thing just means that fears of people not receiving care are unfounded. If the cost of pro bono work really drove up the cost that much (which it does not) then these rotten doctors would probably advertise that they are cheaper because they cut these costs.

In the traditional system everyone is taken care of but no ones rights are violated. In the proposed system everyone receives care, with gov denying care at times, and no one* has the right to opt out.

*Well since you are beginning to debate if there should be a religious exemption for a few it might be virtually no one rather than an actual no one. It is scary that we would even need to have a debate to see if some people might be allowed to not pay or get health care.

You are again so wrong!
Who do you think pays for those emergency room costs for people who are not insured?

We currently have a very hypocritical and not efficient at all system of coverage. .with those who are insure feeling "superior" to those who are either not insured, or those who received government insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran care).

People who do not have insurance will eventually have to go to the emergency room. . .often too late, often when a disease diagnosed earlier would have been manageable at a MUCH lower cost, but they will receive care at an emergency room (paid by you and me) but only to "stabilize them!" That is the law.

Patients who are "dumped" on the street after a couple of days in the hospital, because they can't pay have their rights violated. And although a law is in place to prevent this type of excess, the law has no real funding, so dumping continues to happen all over America.

The system we have now has ONLY one benefit: it gives huge benefits to the for profit health insurance, and their CEO's

Otherwise, there is NOTHING but negatives if you compare this system to any other developped country system of coverage.

And I personally do not believe that any of other "rights" have any meanings unless we have the right to pursue health care.

 

[GenSeneca]

Patients who are "dumped" on the street after a couple of days in the hospital, because they can't pay have their rights violated.

Since when does anyone have a "right" to the products of another individuals labor?

 

[Dr.Who]

You are again so wrong!
Who do you think pays for those emergency room costs for people who are not insured?

In post 80 you indicated that you thought all people paid for the medical care of those who did not have insurance.

I proved that people could choose to use doctors that did not offer pro bono work and they would avoid paying for those who did not have insurance.

Our system in which people CAN avoid being forced to pay for someone else's medical care is better than a system in which people are forced to pay for someone else's medical care.

However, I need to add now that among those who visit emergency rooms without insurance a huge percent of their bill does end up being paid for by themselves. They get billed over time and they pay it.

 

[Dr.Who]

And I personally do not believe that any of other "rights" have any meanings unless we have the right to pursue health care.

Yes, I understand that you don't value most rights. Fortunately those rights are protected by our constitution, well they are supposed to be.

But since every single person in this country has access to health care (and virtually all of them get adequate health care despite your claims to the contrary) then I guess you should be saying that those other rights do have meaning.

But I am glad that we clarified that you don't care much about most of our rights.

Let's also clarify that you don't really want people to be able to pursue health care (since everyone can do that now) what you really want is for everyone to be given health care by a government that does not have the authority to give it.

 

[Openmind]

Yes, I understand that you don't value most rights. Fortunately those rights are protected by our constitution, well they are supposed to be.

But since every single person in this country has access to health care (and virtually all of them get adequate health care despite your claims to the contrary) then I guess you should be saying that those other rights do have meaning.

But I am glad that we clarified that you don't care much about most of our rights.

Let's also clarify that you don't really want people to be able to pursue health care (since everyone can do that now) what you really want is for everyone to be given health care by a government that does not have the authority to give it.

You are either REALLY thick, (which I don't really believe) or you are really dishonest.

I NEVER said I didn't care about any rights. . .What I said was that, without the right to access health care when every time you need it (not just when you are obliged to go to an emergency room because you have had to "ignore" that vaginal bleeding for so long that you now are hemoreaging, or to access health care for your child when you notice that he/she is not thriving, and had problem breating, your OTHER rights (i.e., the right to carry a gun, or the right to free speech) is a moot point.

I KNOW you understood what I was saying. That is what is so stupid and frustrating with your kind. . . you spin people's words, knowing full well that you are spinning. This is dishonnest and stupid. And only stupid people would fall for it.

And I disagree that the government doesn't have the right to provide an option for everyone to access health care. In fact, the government has been doing it for decades (through medicare and medicaid and VA), but that hasn't been a problem worth the "lobbyists" time and energy. . .and therefore the GOP propaganda machine. . .because THE POPULATIONS COVERED BY GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE ARE THE MOST COSTLY, AND OFTEN THE POOREST, THEREFORE THE MONEY GRABBING, FOR PROFIT ONLY, BIG BUSINESS HEALTH CARE IS NOT INTERESTED IN COVERING THOSE POPULATIONS!

 

[Dr.Who]

You are either REALLY thick, (which I don't really believe) or you are really dishonest.

I NEVER said I didn't care about any rights. . .What I said was that, without the right to access health care when every time you need it (not just when you are obliged to go to an emergency room because you have had to "ignore" that vaginal bleeding for so long that you now are hemoreaging, or to access health care for your child when you notice that he/she is not thriving, and had problem breating, your OTHER rights (i.e., the right to carry a gun, or the right to free speech) is a moot point.

I KNOW you understood what I was saying. That is what is so stupid and frustrating with your kind. . . you spin people's words, knowing full well that you are spinning. This is dishonnest and stupid. And only stupid people would fall for it.

And I disagree that the government doesn't have the right to provide an option for everyone to access health care. In fact, the government has been doing it for decades (through medicare and medicaid and VA), but that hasn't been a problem worth the "lobbyists" time and energy. . .and therefore the GOP propaganda machine. . .because THE POPULATIONS COVERED BY GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE ARE THE MOST COSTLY, AND OFTEN THE POOREST, THEREFORE THE MONEY GRABBING, FOR PROFIT ONLY, BIG BUSINESS HEALTH CARE IS NOT INTERESTED IN COVERING THOSE POPULATIONS!

No I really do believe that you do not care much for many of our rights and despite your objections I still believe that. If you cared for other rights I do not think you would say they are meaningless without the right to pursue health care.

You are saying that health care is so important that other rights are in comparison far less important. Which is contrary to the will of all those through our history who have willingly sacrificed their right to life itself (and of course then their health) to preserve all those other rights.

"Until the New Deal era, a general acknowledgement that individual social welfare, more specifically the use of public monies for the purpose of charity by the national government, was unconstitutional on the national level prevailed in government. Charity was known not to be an enumerated power nor one reasonably implied by the "necessary and proper" clause and therefore considered unconstitutional. Yet around the time of the New Deal, government began overlooking this clear unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court temporarily checked this until the Court Packing Scandal led to pro-welfare rulings by an incapacitated court, fearing dismantling by FDR and therefore under duress, in 1937. Since then the use of public monies for charity, or social welfare, has expanded in what is reasonably termed direct defiance of the Constitution."
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/constitution.html

In other words the constitution does not grant that power, the framers specifically said so, the legislature said so, the courts said so, and everyone understood that - up until the scotus was blackmailed.

(old people tend to be the wealthiest of all of us and they also use most of the funds in SS, so this is not about class warfare as much as you want to advance class warfare arguments. There is a huge and thriving business in offering health care to those populations on top of what they get from the gov. They would love to offer even more.)

As a final word you do not care about the very real and very clear constitutional right that each and every person be allowed to keep the fruits of their labors and that each and every person be able to determine his own course in life and you would gladly sacrifice those two clear rights in favor of a vague, illusiory and unconstitutional right to gov provided health care. So yes you do not care very much about other rights.

 

[Dr.Who]

I KNOW you understood what I was saying.

Then you are a mind reader.

That is what is so stupid and frustrating with your kind. . .

This is at best a logical error and a generalization. At worst it is an infraction of the rules here.

you spin people's words,

I interpret what I believe to be true about what you believe based on things you say. Just as you do.

knowing full well that you are spinning.

I believe my understanding of your viewpoint might even be more accurate than your own understanding of your own viewpoint.

This is dishonnest and stupid.

Nope.

And only stupid people would fall for it.

So anyone here who agrees is not just wrong but they are actually stupid. You are no longer discussing views or ideas or posts (if your previous comments ever were limited to that) but now you are insulting members of this forum.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are again so wrong!
Who do you think pays for those emergency room costs for people who are not insured?

We currently have a very hypocritical and not efficient at all system of coverage. .with those who are insure feeling "superior" to those who are either not insured, or those who received government insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran care).

People who do not have insurance will eventually have to go to the emergency room. . .often too late, often when a disease diagnosed earlier would have been manageable at a MUCH lower cost, but they will receive care at an emergency room (paid by you and me) but only to "stabilize them!" That is the law.

When a hospital passes costs from those who don't pay on to those who do pay only 2.5% of the bill is a result of that.

"Hospitals provided about $35 bn in uncompensated care in 2008, the CBO says. Uncompensated care represented only 5% of total hospital revenues. In addition, half of the $35 bn in uncompensated hospital costs were offset by Medicare and Medicaid."

This quote is taken from CBO data and can be found and sourced here:

http://theconservativepost.com/WordPress/?p=1883

Patients who are "dumped" on the street after a couple of days in the hospital, because they can't pay have their rights violated. And although a law is in place to prevent this type of excess, the law has no real funding, so dumping continues to happen all over America.

Everything I found on "patient dumping" indicates it occurs when one care center pawns off a patient on another care center. I found no recent examples of any patients ending up on the street.

I did find this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/michelle_obamas_patientdumping_1.html

The system we have now has ONLY one benefit: it gives huge benefits to the for profit health insurance, and their CEO's

The insurance industry only collects profits of about 4%. You read that stat recently and did not do any research at all to confirm or deny it. Ye here you are again saying that the insurance industry gets huge profits.

This comment of yours here is not worthy of being a part of this forum. And I will say it yet again "it is factually wrong"

Our system also ensures that every single person in this country has access to health care - it has its problems but it is incredible to say it has only one benefit. This is hackism.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Openmind]

When a hospital passes costs from those who don't pay on to those who do pay only 2.5% of the bill is a result of that.

"Hospitals provided about $35 bn in uncompensated care in 2008, the CBO says. Uncompensated care represented only 5% of total hospital revenues. In addition, half of the $35 bn in uncompensated hospital costs were offset by Medicare and Medicaid."

This quote is taken from CBO data and can be found and sourced here:

http://theconservativepost.com/WordPress/?p=1883


Everything I found on "patient dumping" indicates it occurs when one care center pawns off a patient on another care center. I found no recent examples of any patients ending up on the street.

I did find this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/michelle_obamas_patientdumping_1.html




The insurance industry only collects profits of about 4%. You read that stat recently and did not do any research at all to confirm or deny it. Ye here you are again saying that the insurance industry gets huge profits.

This comment of yours here is not worthy of being a part of this forum. And I will say it yet again "it is factually wrong"

Our system also ensures that every single person in this country has access to health care - it has its problems but it is incredible to say it has only one benefit. This is hackism.

[/QUOTE]

Funny how you are so adept in finding trash on the Obamas, but you can't identify reliable, factual information.

Patient Dumping | Fraud | Office of Inspector General | U.S. ... oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/cmp/patient_dumping.aspCached - Similar-