Forum Post: health care scares me, why not you?
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 28, 2011, 3:27 p.m. EST by BrainC
(400)
from Austin, TX
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
One thing I do not understand is, why doesn't nationalized health care scare liberals?
If the republicans are so greedy and evil, what happens to you if and when they have control again? If the government has control of the health care, and the republicans regain control, what will stop them from using that power for their own gain, financial or political, or for our loss?
For example, how well are they going to take care of the poor elderly if it is going to cost them more? Why would they NOT limit breast cancer exams to over the age of 40 or worse, 50? It would save the insurance companies on exams. And they have already talked extensively about death panels, who's idea is that, the republicans.
Why, then, would anyone want the government to have that kind of power?
Is it simply the less of two evils?
get rid of the government laws breaking health care and it will improve.
I cannot afford health care, let alone a doctor visit. Unless I loose a limb or my family does we are on our own.
universal single payer is the only civilized solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA
I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again.
For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
Obama Care is a big givaway to private health insurance companies. What we really need, and I'm speaking based on the experience of living in Taiwan for 7 years and enjoying their single payer national health insurance program, is just that...SINGLE PAYER healthcare. Their system offered more choices, less waiting, equal or better care and cost a fraction of ours. Rations will need to be applied to some extent in any system. The question you should ask yourself is, do you want a room of profit driven executives to determine what treatment you receive, or do you want your not for profit government* to have this control?
*That being said, we mus also take back our democracy and gov't. I really hope OWS can move toward a concise focus directed at the root of so many 99%'s grievances - money in politics. I'm advocating the single demand of prohibiting private spending on public campaigns. I think this issue will have the most wide reaching impact, gain the broadest support, and will allow the 99% to participate meaningfully as both candidates and voters. Right now I can only think of two ways to get there www.lobbydemocracy.com and www.getmoneyout.com
Why not do a comparison of the health care systems of: Canada, Germany, France, UK, Netherlands, USA, .... on the basis of how much they cost, and what health outcomes ensue. Then you can consider whether the 'free market' pay-per-visit US system has the most bang for the buck.
Actually you don't have to, the Economist has done it for you: http://www.economist.com/node/13899647.
I cannot accept your argument because it is based on greed. You are saying it needs to change because of costs and expenses. I thought we were trying to move away from the greed based mentality.
but once the republicans and democrats get done bickering back and forth, our healthcare will be NOTHING like Japan. It will be a bastardized version of what we have now, with both sides throwing in things not because it helps us, but because it helps them politically.
And what happens when it starts to cost the republicans too much and they CUT programs to make themselves look good, or to BALANCE the budget?
its to even the playing field. so the insured and the uninsured have the same exact options. that having money enough to buy insurance doesn't mean you have a better shot at health-care. when you are dying , the amount of money you have should not be used as influence to get you health care. if this means that more from the rich side die and more of the poor side live then it just evens out and no one loses according to the amount of money they have.
I understand that the intent is to provide insurance to everyone so everyone can have at least a basic level of preventative healthcare, but do you REALLY think that the republicans will keep that intent once they have that kind of power? I would think they will be selling your healthcare to the highest bidder, which will probably be the lowest provider.
Is this not what we keep hearing? republicans would rather let someone die than to have to pay for their healthcare. Why would we then want to give them that actual power?
yes I have heard that. That will change when they cannot use money to access health-care but must wait in line like everyone else. After all Republicans die too.
but why do we want to make everyone wait in line for health care?
this is the way it is now for people without money or insurance. hence 'even the playing field'
are you being sarcastic or do you truly want to 'even the playing field' down to the lowest common denominator?
please don't make it personal. "I" am just saying that is path of reasoning. but yes. life or death due to health reasons should be even. no one person is anymore deserving than another due to the amount of money they have access to.
I'm not trying to insult you, I truly was not sure if you were being sarcastic or not.
Rather than lowering the wealthy to the level of health care of the poor, how about raising the level of health care of the poor to the level of the wealthy?
that is a noble plan.. to do this the wealthy must pay for the health care of the poor. this is apparently unacceptable to most. by using the guise of free health care to all, this is what happens anyway, the problem arises when the wealthy realize they are not getting into the doctor for 3 months because there are 200 poor people before them on the appointment calendar. then they start to think that because they are wealthy they should get in first cause after all they have the cash! you see my point. this is the only way due to the sheer number of people that exist
the wealthy go to select doctors that charge more and have no waiting line. The poor have to contend with the ER and free clinics that are less qualified and have a longer waiting line.
Wont this also force everyone to have health insurance to seek medical attention? What about the wealthy that will pay a doctor out of pocket for better medical care?
there would be problems of course but over all.. the percentage of, im gonna call them unemployed .and under employed. and the percentage of wealthy getting health-care will even out. i cant see any other way to make this happen. the amount of health care available is finite. like being stranded on a desert isle with 10 people and one coconut per day , you either split evenly and you all lose weight or you let some of the people starve there are only two ways about it.
lower the cost of health care to a point where those that are unemployed or under employed can get reasonable preventative health care while allowing the wealthy to pay more for more. Make it so that the health insurance is not for preventative care, but is insurance in case you come down with something serious, like cancer and require extensive long term care.
The amount of health care is not finite. Just because someone rich gets to see a doctor does not prevent someone else from being able to see a doctor. The cost of health care is so high that only the insured can afford it. That is what is preventing everyone from being able to see a doctor.
Here is an idea, have community activists collect donations from local communities and businesses to sponsor talented high school students that are interested in becoming medical doctors, and pay for their schooling with the contractual agreement that they support the community with low cost medical care for a specific amount of time after graduation.
the politicians will just get a "on the hill" doctor to cover themselves. They get to vote on it, and who would not vote for their own health care to be better.
The politicians are excellent at making loop holes, especially for themselves.
Giving more power to the insurance companies who already dominate the broken system we have now and giving them a captive audience of forced participants as PPACA does, is absolutely insane. It's worse than insane, really, it is an outrage.
I root for the Supreme Court to overturn the individual mandate, it is indeed unconstitutional whether they wind up ruling it so or not.
I agree with you. In this country, as it stands now, facing reality, I'd rather just be left alone.
I don't trust this govt or the American people to "do anything" for me.
I want my Social Security benefits as I've paid the full 15% FICA tax for over ten years now. I want the Post Office to remain in operation since it is provided for in our Constitution.
But United States Health Care? Nope.
Stay out of my business, stay out of my life, stay out of my health records, stay out of my bodily fluids.
And I honestly don't want your health insurance, either.
I am situated to do health care tourism if I need to.
Have you actually read the bill or are you just parroting what some entertainer has said?
work long and hard, save cash, stay olut of debt, buy health insurance and get & stay healthy, eat a good diet.
that's health care that works.
start right at home.
exercise and eat a good diet.
no better health care...
Do you know how much it costs some people to buy health insurance? Take me for example, a type 1 diabetic (that's the diabetes you get when you're young, not the kind you earn by sitting on your ass and eating junk food...i had no family history of it either). We're talking about spending ~6-12,000 per year just to stay alive. I want to contribute positively to society and I do (fortunately I have a job with decent insurance), but what I hate about this country is that I'm always living on the edge. You are right however, that most of it starts at home. A single payer system would save everyone money while at the same time providing care for every. For a perfect example, check out Taiwan's National Health Insurance system. I lived there for 7 years and had more choices, better care, less waiting, less personal administrative work and paid a fraction of what I do here.
just out of curiosity, what is the liability insurance like for the doctors? If a doctor messes up on a procedure in Taiwan, what kind of recourse do you have? Is there multi-million dollar lawsuits?
I'll have to get back to you on that one...good question. I believe that there are not multi million dollar lawsuits like we have here, but I'm sure there is something. It certainly is part of what is keeping costs here so high.
and that would be a place to start to at least look at. If the cost of health care can be lowered, then more people could afford health care without health insurance, or lower levels of health insurance.
Now before others jump in saying we need some recourse and safety from bad doctors, I agree. If a doctor is drunk and performing an operation, that is unacceptable. Yet the amount of times a doctor is fraudulently sued nowadays is unacceptable as well.
it starts with employers paying for the health insurance of their employees. It adds a fine if they do not provide it.
Insurance companies cannot raise their rates.
It adds that insurance companies cannot drop anyone and cannot deny anyone for previous claims.
Those that CHOOSE not to have insurance will pay a fine.
Flex spending accounts cannot be used for OTC drugs. Pharmaceutical companies will LOVE this.
It taxes those companies with "Cadillac" plans on a higher bases, so those companies that are doing right by their employees, pay a fine.
The class act provision, if not dropped, will created a long-term care insurance program, a nationalized health insurance.
What happens if this is not profitable to the health insurance companies? Simple, we start to move over to the nationalized health insurance, the government run/controlled health insurance. That is when the evil republicans will strike.
This is a huge what if...health insurance companies got a big gift with obama care. However, what I think we'll see happening is that some companies will drop their employees' health care plans because the fine is actually cheaper than the health insurance!!! SINGLE PAYER, if you don't know what it is yet (and many americans don't) check it out or ask me to elaborate on it.
I do not see it as a huge what if....
what I see happening is that smaller companies will start to move their employees over to the national health care plan because it will be cheaper and they can be more profitable. The government will make it cheaper because they can subsidize it.
The cost of private insurance will go up because less companies will be participating. This will drive even more companies towards the national health care plan, until finally, there is no longer a private plan.
I also looked up the single payer plans, yet those are not being proposed by the administration.
Vermont just passed a single payer system that was designed by the same guy who designed taiwan's.
Also, i should be clear, while this is a HUGE issue for me, I really hope OWS can move toward a concise focus directed at the root of so many 99%'s grievances - money in politics. I'm advocating the single demand of prohibiting private spending on public campaigns. I think this issue will have the most wide reaching impact, gain the broadest support, and will allow the 99% to participate meaningfully as both candidates and voters. Right now I can only think of two ways to get there www.lobbydemocracy.com and www.getmoneyout.com this would keep the gov't much more accountable to the people and I'd feel alot better about trusting them with my health care!
and on the state level is great. National level, not so much...
I also agree with you on the OWS movement towards campaign spending
The answer would be no?
which part is wrong?
My question was have you read the bill or are you just parroting what some entertainer has said?
No I have not read it in its entirety, I have reviewed the bullet points. Yet to say that I am "parroting what some entertainer has said" it not a constructive comment. In fact, you have not provided ANY constructive comments to this post.
Have you read it? the +2000 pages?