COMMENTS:
This just in: 79% of Americans Know little to nothing of economics. Source; The Cletus Post.
I'm amazed by that statistic, and I'm a strong proponent of a national health care system.
Here's the data:
"Which of these do you think is more important: providing health care coverage for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes, OR, holding down taxes, even if it means some Americans do not have health care coverage?"
Coverage For All: 79%
Holding Down Taxes: 17%
Unsure: 4%
And you do know something about economics, huh, Yokel?
The Cletus Post? hahahaha I'm sure that is a reliable source of information.
Really doubt their numbers there, I don't know anyone that thinks it's a good idea, including the people I know that voted for Kerry. I don't know about you but I'm not made of money & can't afford to pay everyone else's bills.
Also it's good to remember that if they ask a question a certain way they will get the answer they want. (the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question for example)I don't even try to answer polls anymore because when I would the questions were never straight forward like simmply "Do you support..." there was always a set up to the question, I don't know how they did this poll but I can't see normal adults voting to pay for someone else's heath care ?
health care I mean. Also everyone I've heard speak on the subject that comes from a country were they have that set up dislikes it. There is an old joke about the waiting list for an obgyn being about 9 months long, if that gives you some idea.
Amazing number!
everygirl, you're right, you ARE put on a waiting list unless it's an emergency - in which case you are seen immediately. My parents live over there and they have some supplemental insurance for when they don't want to wait. An example of how great it can be: my dad recently had an eye operation in England that isn't even available over here - on the National Health. I would rather pay a bit more in taxes than the $2500/year I currently pay for catastrophic insurance - which doesn't cover any kind of checkups, OB-GYN or otherwise. No coverage for medications either. There's got to be a middle ground somewhere - especially when 48 million U.S. citizens have absolutely no health coverage whatever.
by mojo on Mon Jun 13, 05 11:51am
[+]
* over there: England
by mojo on Mon Jun 13, 05 11:52am
[+]
Haha sorry if I came off as a wiseass there, no harm intended. In all seriousness, I know a lot about economics. It is a bad idea, IMO. Everyone has their own opinion, though.
Im just curious, does that stat with 48 million Americans include those who choose not to have it? There are many employers that give the employee the option of either paying a percentage of their care or a fee, and employees have the choice to forego a healthcare plan. I'd be interested in those stats, if anyone has them.
Wow, everygirl. I know lots of people in countries that have universal health care and not a single one has complained about the things you mention. Also, all these countries provide health care at a cost that is 50% or less than what it costs per person in the US. Are people who oppose national health care saying that the greatest country on Earth couldn't do it better than ... say France??
Also, their health outcomes are better. Infant mortality rates lower, recovery from disease, injury, heart problems etc.
Since the US spends so much more money on health care than those countries, it is a drag on the economy - too much money is being spent on health care. Imagine how much money could be freed up if we spent half as much as we do now. Businesses would have a lot more money to spend and invest. What a bum deal!
The fact is that health care is rationed now. How often have you had to have a treatment approved, a drug approved your doctor wants you to take or having to spend a lot of money for the only drug that will help you. Your co-pays are to designed to discourage you from visiting the doctor.
Then there is the whole MORAL issue of 40 some million people who have no coverage at all. Because of this, many of them end up in an emergency room which drives the costs of treatment sky high. A simple doctor's visit might have solved the problem, but they couldn't have afforded it. They had to wait until it was almost too late. This is a PERFECT example of how you end up paying someone else's bills (and the problem could have been avoided with a simple early visit to a doctor).
Surprising. Much higher than I expected.
Not many, I'd guess. The government has done a great job innoculating us against the idea of a national healthcare system. They have slung "socialist medicine" and other labels around to instill
"evil" in our minds when the idea is brought up.
And all sorts of examples are given that "socialist medicine" is of poor quality, slow, and impersonal. This might be true, but 45 million citizens now have no health insurance, and any system that serviced these people would be an improvement.
In America it doesn't matter what percentage of the population supports something: It's what the lobbyists, PAC's, and special interests want that counts. Unless, or until, we eliminate this intervening layer of interests, we will not be able to change the system.
Fiddle again when those figures are quoted you have to look at the source. The "uninsured" those figures, include people who have left jobs & gone to different ones , despite having insurance now the new coverage isn't listed in the figures for that year, also anyone if you are like me & started at the bottem , then you know you've been without coverage & you know as long as you don't run to the doc. every time you have a sniffle you cut way back on doc. visits, I had a job for as long as 2yrs without coverage, (it was my choice, I was just starting out & was fine with it) I went for 2yrs without a visit except for one to a "Doc. in the Box" as they call them where they charge per visit. No biggie. I don't like to see anyone go without coverage but I hardly consider it a "moral issue". Again you need to check the source of those stats. Really can't see Americans handing over their cash like that. We have to support our family not everyone elses. Also if you want to see people run to the doc when not necessary , tell them you'll pay for it , that'll do it.
Also waiting lists , why should a hard working person be put on a waiting list in any country much less America? If you are sick with the symptoms of cancer & you wait to see a doctor do you know what you could be doing to yourself? It's a death sentence. & the doctor (much less the people handing out appointments) can't tell just by symptoms if it is cancer , so you won't go on the Emergency list.
Really bad idea, really anti-democracy & anti-capitalism.
Also the emergency situations are already covered by our system it is illegal for the hospital emergency room to turn you away in a true emergency if you have no coverage.
We shouldn't have a national program, much less a universal one. =:-)=
Why should a hard-working person be denied any healthcare? That's inhumane.
Oh well. Never mind.
by mojo on Mon Jun 13, 05 2:39pm
[+]
I really stare in incredulity at the nay sayers of a national health system on this ballot. The argument seems to be 'Why should we pay for everyone else'. That may be a valid point if youactually got what you paid for, as I understand it, there are several health insurance plans in the US,and people choose whhich plan (if they do indeed choose a plan) is most affordable to them.
So lets say you pay 3000 dollars per year for a fairly comprehensive plan, but like many plans they dont cover things like.... HIV, Cancer, and other diseases that would be cost prohibitive. You find yourself forking out 3K for a plan that has so many 'clauses' it hardly seems worth having.
Then you have the ones that 'choose' not to have insurance, and will risk various illnesses until they finally get something that could have been prevented by a simple visit to a GP.
Then we come to my health system in the UK, where you pay National Insurance (which everyone pays without exception) and healthcare is free at the point of use.
To me its a no brainer, pay a (relatively) small proportion of my earning into a system that covers me from cradle to grave. I can visit my GP at any time, will be treated at hospital for any medical problem from a broken arm to Cancer.
And for those who prefer the 'private' insurance that is also an option for those who wish it. So you get the best of both world, private and social care.
I have to say, I can find no argument from those opposed to social medicine that would ever persuade me (and 97% of the UK population) to ever scrap it.
The stupid and or uninformed, whatever percentage that is.
The best argument against it is that stealing is wrong. A voluntary system is fine.
The Stupid are the ones who think our elected officials should have better health care than our grandmothers.
by Jyl on Mon Jun 13, 05 5:49pm
[+]
almost everyone I ever spoke to thinks it's a good idea, the ones who are against it are the ones who have great insurance through their jobs
Hmm, and 65% believe in ghosts, I guess that means ghosts are real.
Assuming that poll is accurate, which they usually aren't, all it proves is that the majority of people who voted are dumber than a block of wood. Of course the people who voted probably wouldn't be in favor of raising their taxes if you asked them, they'd say we should tax all those rich people. Rich in this case being defined by people who have more money than they do.
If you like breadlines and rationing you'll love socialized medicine.
But, of course, Zerhog believes it's morally wrong to spend money treating terminally ill children.
So you can justify spending millions to keep a kid alive in agony for another few months when it is garuanteed that nothing you do and no amount of money you spend will help him at all? All the while this money and these resources are being denied to those who have a chance of recovery? Justify that please.
What if he hadn't said "terminally ill", what about just sick and poor.
Then screw 'em huh? :p Maybe they won't even make it to adulthood- lord knows those old people sure are needy!!
by Jyl on Mon Jun 13, 05 8:17pm
[+]
Well jyl if there's a chance he'll recover then it's not 'terminally' ill which would make it a completely different story now wouldn't it? What if he wasn't sick at all, what if he was just faking it to get attention? See, changing the basis of the question makes the answer given no longer relevent.
If there is a chance the child will recover then he should recieve treatment, obviously. But that is not the law that crank is refering to nor is it relevent to the discussion.
oh it's not "relevent to the discussion."
silly me :p
by Jyl on Mon Jun 13, 05 8:39pm
[+]
Seems to work in other countries, and the people from those countries are satisfied with it. I've known a few NATO families that are stationed here in America and are appalled at our system of health care. They seem to prefer the more "universal health coverage" their nations provide. All these stories about the horrors of national health care - where are the facts? Do you really resent being on a waiting list for some minor illness if it means someone with a major illness may get care they otherwise wouldn't? What kind of society are we that the health of our community is not a priority. What we have now just doesn't work except for the priveledged few. And in the end all of us suffer for it. I have health coverage and I don't see a doctor every time i get the sniffles. Do you ever suspect it's the private insurance companies that feed out the misinformation about how "bad" national health care would be?
You're killen 'em, herzog!
you're right Yokie,
one more word from You Guys
and I'm changing parties!
Hallelujah, call the county!!
by Jyl on Tue Jun 14, 05 12:12am
[+]
Where did they conduct this 'poll'??? Its total shit. And the people talking about "poor uninsured kids" dont know what theyre talking about. A friend of mine is a poor single mother...her insurance is free and better than most of y'alls plans.
Our system is highy flawed because the government won't stop meddling with it. A transfer to a socialized system would combine the worst qualities of our system with the worst of a socialized system. It's a joke to say our system operates under a free market.
btw, Stealing another person's money is always wrong.
not a chance, unless judicial laws are redone to place limitations on how much money bastard lawyers can from companies during lawsuits
Hmmmm so its stealing when its socialised medicine, but its not stealing when its for arms and other trillion dollars enterprises....
If you asked the average non rabid neo conservative what they would prefer, medicine for all or weapos of mass destruction, Im guess we would see.
^ I didn't write that, you did.
Steel: national defense benefits everyone in that nation, and there is literally no way to charge on a per use basis. Healthcare benefits some, and it absolutely can be charged on a per use basis.
This is the difference between public goods and private ones. Besides which, defense is mentioned in the constitution, free liposuction isn't.
How on earth spending trillions of dollars on an overinflated defense budget benefitting anyone?
How on earth did it stop two aeroplanes hitting two office blocks in New York?
How does it stop a determined terrorist taking a suitcase nuclear bomb into any city in the US?
Perhaps if more money was spent not making enemies of almost every non caucasian country in the world, then these defenses would not be needed.
Grow up America, give your citizens something that should be a right, its the only decent thing to do.
|
