General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
And the Swiss tend to have supplemental insurance policies to fund those who want "better" care.

So? You asked about who has the better care for those who could afford it. I merely poised another place doctors flock to.
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 03-24-2010, 03:44 PM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#151  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coqui View Post
So? You asked about who has the better care for those who could afford it. I merely poised another place doctors flock to.

Fair enough, but less valid in the current context because they are not a traditional social medical system. In fact, you could argue the Swiss system is akin to what we had.
__________________
09 F9
Old 03-24-2010, 03:45 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#152  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Fair enough, but less valid in the current context because they are not a traditional social medical system. In fact, you could argue the Swiss system is akin to what we had.

Uh no? If anything it's more similar to the new system. There's a mandate for purchasing insurance, and poor people get a subsidy from the government to help cover it. There's really no meaningful comparison to our old system.
Old 03-24-2010, 04:49 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#153  

Jason
 
So the health care bill costs $940 billion this year and is supposed to cover 32 million additional people... that is like $30,000 a person. Couldn't they have just bought those 32 million people health insurance and saved $25,000 each?
Old 03-24-2010, 05:07 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#154  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Furthermore, comparisons to Japan are disingenuous because of their dependent circumstances such as not having any army.

How does that affect the numbers in the charts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
So the health care bill costs $940 billion this year and is supposed to cover 32 million additional people... that is like $30,000 a person. Couldn't they have just bought those 32 million people health insurance and saved $25,000 each?

Isn't that 940 billion the cost over a decade, not a year?
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 03-24-2010, 06:13 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#155  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Furthermore, comparisons to Japan are disingenuous because of their dependent circumstances such as not having any army.

Japan actually has the world's 7th largest defense budget (granted, about 8 percent the size of US defense budget and half the size of China's).

It's about one percent GDP compared to the US's five.
Old 03-24-2010, 06:35 PM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#156  

Jason
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
How does that affect the numbers in the charts?



Isn't that 940 billion the cost over a decade, not a year?

Estimated, yes... but they are estimating a negative cost by then too... which won't happen. Even over 10 years that is $3000 per person per year... you can easily get insurance for a group that big for that much.
Old 03-24-2010, 06:47 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#157  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Estimated, yes... but they are estimating a negative cost by then too... which won't happen. Even over 10 years that is $3000 per person per year... you can easily get insurance for a group that big for that much.

Not if a huge portion of those people REALLY need insurance, which is why they can't afford it in the status quo (mainly unemployed upper-middle aged people that do not yet qualify for medicare).
Old 03-24-2010, 06:57 PM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#158  

Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Fair enough, but less valid in the current context because they are not a traditional social medical system. In fact, you could argue the Swiss system is akin to what we had.

How is it less valid when the question was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrikfuzz050 View Post
So would you agree or disagree we have the best health care in the world of you can afford it?

I'm not talking about social medicince. i'm purely talkingabout the best medical system in the world no matter what kind it is.
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 03-24-2010, 07:25 PM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#159  

BoxyBrown
 
BoxyBrown's Avatar
 
People who claim they're open minded make me sick. They're only open minded as long as your beliefs are inline with theirs.

Health care shouldn't be crammed down your throat. I do however like the idea that corporate insurers are going to have to some stiff competition now.
__________________
[M] GNU/Linux crew
There will be no peace as long as Zionists and niggers are alive.
DigitalMocking please don't ban me for this post.
Old 03-24-2010, 08:21 PM BoxyBrown is offline  
Reply With Quote
#160  

teh scud
 
teh scud's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxyBrown View Post
People who claim they're open minded make me sick. They're only open minded as long as your beliefs are inline with theirs.

Health care shouldn't be crammed down your throat. I do however like the idea that corporate insurers are going to have to some stiff competition now.

nobody likes the idea of mandating insurance, but there's not really any alternative when you want to make it to where sick people can stay insured. without the mandate, people would just stay uninsured until they get sick.

edit: i think down the line it'll just be a non-issue. people will look back and think "wait... people would get sick and die because they couldn't get insurance? that's crazy!"

Last edited by teh scud; 03-24-2010 at 08:40 PM..
Old 03-24-2010, 08:31 PM teh scud is offline  
Reply With Quote
#161  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Uh no? If anything it's more similar to the new system. There's a mandate for purchasing insurance, and poor people get a subsidy from the government to help cover it. There's really no meaningful comparison to our old system.

Those who want "good" care buy their own supplemental insurance. They can bypass the lines and hassles because their doctors aren't mandated to treat subsidize patients first.
Private medical practice is permitted and institutions can decline to cover.

Compare this to the Canadian or English system.
__________________
09 F9
Old 03-25-2010, 09:17 AM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#162  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
How does that affect the numbers in the charts?

Japans economic climate (and the results of their spending) are different than ours.

Quote:
Isn't that 940 billion the cost over a decade, not a year?
It's the *proposed* cost over the period from when the benefits begin. It's not an entire decade but it's more than a year.
__________________
09 F9
Old 03-25-2010, 09:19 AM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#163  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Those who want "good" care buy their own supplemental insurance. They can bypass the lines and hassles because their doctors aren't mandated to treat subsidize patients first.
Private medical practice is permitted and institutions can decline to cover.

Compare this to the Canadian or English system.

Sure, it's not like the Canadian or English system, but that doesn't mean it is anything like our system, pre-reform bill. It's much more similar to the post-reform system, and more "socialist" than even that in many areas.

Also, while they have private health care companies, they largely operated under a non-profit scheme. Big difference from the US.
Old 03-25-2010, 09:44 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#164  

Sarah Palin
 
Sarah Palin's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Whatever you happen to think about the details of this bill: The issue basically boils down to the fact that we've been unable to address the problem of health care for at least 30 years. The Democrats have tried before, and been shot down. The Republicans have "ideas" (some of them good, I started a thread about a good Republican bill), but they have no apparent interest in actually passing them when they have the ability to. They haven't even passed tort reform, one of their supposed health care keys, despite having the legislative muscle to do so at many points. Presumably it was more valuable as a talking point than as legislation.

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the Republicans were just not going to address this problem. The Democratic bill may not be the best, but this bill addresses at least some of the serious problems in our system. There are lots of ways we could have gotten a better bill, but both parties combined to lead to this.



On a side note, I'm waiting for financial reform to come around, we'll really be able to see who the brainless conservative drones are then. Anyone who comes out spouting the Wall Street line against reform is pretty much incorrigible.

It would be unconstitutional for the feds to pass tort reform as most malpractice cases are handled at the state level, it's pretty much up to each individual state to impose these reforms, not the feds... some have started

We have to be careful about how big we want the federal gov't to be. The country was set up with sovereign states, and as it stands now if you don't like the policy of one, you can move to another. If we remove this and make everything "the same" under one big federal government then we really screw ourselves because our votes will then matter less than they already do.
Old 03-25-2010, 12:44 PM Sarah Palin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#165  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.