TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Right To Everything
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Your entire country was formed on liberal ideology you clueless hacks. Where do you think they got �Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness� for crying out loud? You wouldn�t know "liberal ideology" if it was up you with an arm full of chairs.

Leave it to trolls like you to attack a poster for presenting a legitimate point of view and simply encouraging a debate. Someones been playing too many videogames. Maybe try to get outside more rather than insulting others on the interwebs just because their opinion differs from yours?

quote:

Originally posted by Max Thomson Maybe try to get outside more rather than insulting others on the interwebs just because their opinion differs from yours?

Likewise.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/200..._bankruptcy.php http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml A recent Harvard study found that medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 60% of personal bankruptcies in the United States. "Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy...for middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection...," said Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard University, who helped compile the study. The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other UN member nation. It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Germany, France, or Japan who have PUBLIC INSURANCE.

Don't forget that in addition to paying nearly DOUBLE in terms of health care costs related to GDP, we are achieving poorer results.

quote:

Healthier than thou Aug 20th 2009 From The Economist print edition How Britain�s health system compares with America�s Illustration by David Simonds THE NHS is the closest thing the English have to a national religion, Nigel Lawson, a former Tory chancellor, once observed. Seldom has that tart comment seemed more apposite than in recent days, as both Gordon Brown and David Cameron leapt to the defence of the NHS following vitriolic criticism in America of Britain�s �Orwellian� health service. Some of the charges against it are absurd, but does the tax-financed NHS deserve such worship this side of the Atlantic? Comparing the performance of health systems is tricky. For one thing, people may attach different values to crucial features such as coverage, choice, equity and the quality of clinical care. For another, people�s health reflects influences like lifestyles that have little to do with medical care. Cost must also be taken into account. The World Health Organisation attempted an evaluation in 2000, in which Britain came 18th out of 191 countries and America 37th, but the methods used to compile the ranking were heavily criticised and it has not repeated the exercise. On the most basic metric of life expectancy at birth, Britain (79.1 years) outscores America (77.8). Longevity is admittedly a crude and indirect indicator of population health. Yet a similar story emerged from a study in 2006 that used direct measures to compare the health of middle-aged people: the Americans were sicker than the English. Another line of inquiry is to investigate how health systems perform in tackling conditions that are treatable, comparing death-rates for such illnesses among the under-75s. Britain does not emerge well from one such ranking, compiled by Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Their study, published in early 2008, placed Britain 16th among 19 advanced countries (France came first). But America came last. On the other hand, Britain scores worse than America in five-year survival rates for cancer. High-tech diagnostic equipment is less abundant: in 2007 there were, for example, 25.9 MRI scanners per million Americans compared with 8.2 in Britain. Expensive new drugs generally become widely available sooner in America than in Britain. One reason is that in Britain they are subject to a cost-benefit assessment. Although this approach has been demonised in America it merely makes explicit the rationing in any medical system through the decisions of insurers and funders. And then there�s the question of overall cost. Even after a huge expansion of the NHS budget over the past decade, spending on health care in Britain amounted to 8.4% of GDP in 2007 compared with 16% in America, according to the OECD. Public spending on health care per person is actually higher in America (through Medicare, Medicaid and other government programmes). Both health systems have their virtues and their faults. At its best, America offers extraordinarily good clinical care, but too many people lack insurance cover or fret about losing it. The NHS provides health care to all at a much lower total cost, but patients have less clout. Both countries are crying out for reforms to bring about better and cheaper care. http://www.economist.com/world/brit...ory_id=14259044

Why people want to maintain the status quo of a health care system that costs more and delivers less than virtually every other advanced country boggles the mind. That even ignores the moral issue of not providing health care to every citizen.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Don't forget that in addition to paying nearly DOUBLE in terms of health care costs related to GDP, we are achieving poorer results. Why people want to maintain the status quo of a health care system that costs more and delivers less than virtually every other advanced country boggles the mind. That even ignores the moral issue of not providing health care to every citizen.

They don't want to accept that in many countries, public healthcare provides more care for less money. It comes from a generalization that all things government equate to communism. I heard one idiot on CNN talk about Obama pushing what he called, "Afro-leninism". Guy probably didn't even know what Leninism is..

I think Obama seriously miscalculated his message on healthcare. The assumption was that the moral argument was all that was needed to curry favor for reform. The system isn't universal, but should be. Then we realize that most Americans actually don't care that their neighbors are uninsured (for anecdotal proof, watch the booing that takes place in townhalls whenever a citizen tells their story of being uninsured).

The first and only argument should have been the one occ just pointed to - efficiency. What people can't seem to get their head around is that the cost won't really increase - it just shifts. The Franken video above includes the example of the Mayo Clinic that I think is very illuminating. Shifting the administration of health care institutions and insurance companies can reduce costs for the consumer that offsets any increase in public cost.

This plan isn't anywhere near as radical as it is being depicted by opponents. Furthermore, it isn't compulsory, which is a frequent claim. I'd challenge anyone who's actually READ the bill to explain how they could ever actually call it socialist. It's absolutely absurd that this is where the public dialogue has settled. And really quite sad. I feel we should be putting health care on the back burner for awhile to focus on civic education. Lord knows most of this country needs it.

There are any number of reasons why healthcare is more expensive in America than elsewhere..and the fact that high costs have caused bankruptcies is irrelevant, because putting it under the mantle of "government" is not going to erase those costs. It is merely going to camoflauge them and spread them out to millions of taxpayers. In addition to spreading costs, any time you reduce the price of something for low income people (another main reason for the bill), demand increases tremendously..

So this bill basically forces companies to accept MORE patients needing to be covered for MORE operations and prevents any discrimination based on pre-existing conditions...prevents companies from charging more for high high risk patients that are likely to result in large losses. Do you guys realize how perverse it is to try and freeze rates and force everyone to be treated equally regardless of the risk/cost they are likely to impose?. This is one of the things Franken was bragging about in that video (Switzerland style). Do you see how much these ideas screw with the the laws of risk vs reward and supply vs demand?

Even if people can't help their medical condition, they should still be expected to pay more. Life isn't fair folks. The world is a very unfair place. Every cosmic injustice can not be remedied by legislation and only harm can come from attempting to do so. If you want to live in a free society, you need to accept some level of inequality..You need to accept that innocent people will sometimes face undeserved suffering. It sucks, yes...but putting a claim on the lives and fortunes of those who don't suffer on behalf of those who do is an even greater injustice..because it is an injustice made by CHOICE rather than chance.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I think Obama seriously miscalculated his message on healthcare. The assumption was that the moral argument was all that was needed to curry favor for reform. The system isn't universal, but should be. Then we realize that most Americans actually don't care that their neighbors are uninsured (for anecdotal proof, watch the booing that takes place in townhalls whenever a citizen tells their story of being uninsured). The first and only argument should have been the one occ just pointed to - efficiency. What people can't seem to get their head around is that the cost won't really increase - it just shifts. The Franken video above includes the example of the Mayo Clinic that I think is very illuminating. Shifting the administration of health care institutions and insurance companies can reduce costs for the consumer that offsets any increase in public cost. This plan isn't anywhere near as radical as it is being depicted by opponents. Furthermore, it isn't compulsory, which is a frequent claim. I'd challenge anyone who's actually READ the bill to explain how they could ever actually call it socialist. It's absolutely absurd that this is where the public dialogue has settled. And really quite sad. I feel we should be putting health care on the back burner for awhile to focus on civic education. Lord knows most of this country needs it.

I think Obama needs to get on the tube and address the nation and explain it in laymen's terms the healthcare reform and dispell the numerous lies that are out there.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Indeed, when I am on the losing side of a debate, I'd rather prohibit everyone smarter than myself from participating, too.

Nothing's lost, you're just trying to throw darts at a moving target, and you missed by a wide margin.

Stimulus funds come with federal strings attached. I can understand the secession desires from the Texas candidates, though I don't necessarily think it's feasible. That was an entirely off-topic comment anyway.

Krypton, the proposed health bill doesn't kill off private plans right away but it mentions a deadline at which point grandfathered plans will expire and have to comply with some compulsory requirements as determined by the Govt. I didn't see said requirements mentioned in the bill...if they're present, I'd love to know. This is just a push for more government control in the lives of its citizenry. One needs to look no further than the proposal in the bill (or an addendum to the bill) of IRS power expansion and the granting of direct access to individual bank accounts. You may find Big Brother lovey dovey but I would rather they keep their distance.

And Capitalizt is correct, health costs that are causing personal bankruptcy would simply be spread across the population in the form of tax hikes, not to mention the base insurance one may likely be required to purchase.

Also, I get a little tired of the misdirection of the argument that "health care is a right." What's really meant is "health care insurance is a right."

It sure is nice to know that not everyone at ABC is in the Govt's pocket:



I agree 100% with the "bridge to govt run care" espoused by that video because Obama himself has been ambiguous on that point. He is just using a more staggered approach. ANIMALS have access to more expedient healthcare under private plans than humans do under the public option in Canada. If that's the end goal here, I want no part of what the maniacs on the left are selling...NONE (and I am presently self-employed and uninsured).

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 Stimulus funds come with federal strings attached. I can understand the secession desires from the Texas candidates, though I don't necessarily think it's feasible.

You might not want to say that in public. People judge you for saying things like that.

quote:

Krypton, the proposed health bill doesn't kill off private plans right away but it mentions a deadline at which point grandfathered plans will expire and have to comply with some compulsory requirements as determined by the Govt. I didn't see said requirements mentioned in the bill...if they're present, I'd love to know. This is just a push for more government control in the lives of its citizenry.

Here's where I ask if you've read the bill or simply gotten talking points from conservative op-eds and blogs.

quote:

� And when you do, scroll down to subsection C, which states that �Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.� In other words, after the bill becomes law, all new health insurance plans would have to be purchased through the Health Insurance Exchange, which, according to a House committee summary, is a �marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers.� The provision Investor�s Business Daily latched onto in is, in reality, all about increasing choice and competition in the marketplace between both public and private health insurance options, not limiting choice.

View the bill here to confirm: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/11...h&nid=t0:ih:255

quote:

One needs to look no further than the proposal in the bill (or an addendum to the bill) of IRS power expansion and the granting of direct access to individual bank accounts. You may find Big Brother lovey dovey but I would rather they keep their distance.

Also wrong.

quote:

� in other words, this section of the actual bill does not do what Limbaugh and Rep. Shadegg and others claim. They are demonstrably wrong (see above). It is simply a check on the status of an individual�s insurance coverage, one that already happens today and would be required under any possible system built on individual health insurance. A few lines down, another section of the bill has been targeted as the part that would supposedly provide the government with private financial information. One line of the section attempt to standardize electronic administrative transactions, such as electronic fund transfers that occur between insurance companies and health care providers for the purpose of administrative simplification. Another line would enable electronics funds transactions to allow �automated reconciliation� of health care costs. This would basically amount to nothing more than an automatic online bill-pay system for people to pay their premiums every month. There is no language in H.R. 3200 that would make it legal for the government to have �direct, real-time access to individual bank accounts.� The bill even includes basic requirements that all personal data that is collected under the provisions is used in a matter that meets privacy and security laws, and it restricts �inappropriate� uses, �including use of such data in determinations of eligibility (or continued eligibility) in health plans.�

View the bill here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/11...h&nid=t0:ih:497

quote:

Also, I get a little tired of the misdirection of the argument that "health care is a right." What's really meant is "health care insurance is a right."

No, you've misunderstood that argument too. Realistic access to health care is the right. But as I mentioned above, we're past that now. Pro-reform people have been wanting to discuss the details of this thing for over a month, but anti-reform people like yourself continue to wave discredited arguments in everybody's face.

quote:

ANIMALS have access to more expedient healthcare under private plans than humans do under the public option in Canada.

Again, these are the kinds of comments best left unsaid. We're judging.

Lebez pretty much addressed your argument but I'll address some bits.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 Krypton, the proposed health bill doesn't kill off private plans right away but it mentions a deadline at which point grandfathered plans will expire and have to comply with some compulsory requirements as determined by the Govt.

Point me to where it says that. As the word reform may imply, the rules are going to change such as no denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions. That shouldn't be a surprise to you. It's reform.

quote:

I didn't see said requirements mentioned in the bill...if they're present, I'd love to know.

I would too because you'r making arguments based on something you'v admitted you haven't read.

quote:

This is just a push for more government control in the lives of its citizenry. One needs to look no further than the proposal in the bill (or an addendum to the bill) of IRS power expansion and the granting of direct access to individual bank accounts. You may find Big Brother lovey dovey but I would rather they keep their distance.

Point me where in the bill it's giving more power to the IRS. Every law is a push for more government control. This is healthcare for fuck's sake. Nobody is advocating police breaking down your door in the middle of the night and making you disappear. I'd really love it if the anti-healthcare reform crowd would stop their black and white blanket statements which really do sound ridiculous.

quote:

And Capitalizt is correct, health costs that are causing personal bankruptcy would simply be spread across the population in the form of tax hikes, not to mention the base insurance one may likely be required to purchase.

Look, people paying insurance premiums now would now either pay that premium, or if the public option is available, that premium would be in the form of taxes. This wouldn't be premium + tax on one person. They either pay a premium or pay a healthcare tax just like Medicare. As economist Paul Krugman pointed out, the administrative savings would amount to something like $200 billion because the public/cooperative option won't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing algorithms for what to charge people for a million different factors, one being pre-existing conditions.

quote:

Also, I get a little tired of the misdirection of the argument that "health care is a right." What's really meant is "health care insurance is a right."

Access to healthcare is a right and health insurance is how to pay for it. You have two options. The current system which makes insured persons pay for the insured with higher and higher insurance premiums. OR. The reformed system which gets everyone insured, everyone paying something into the system, and the cost load shared by everyone.

quote:

I agree 100% with the "bridge to govt run care" espoused by that video because Obama himself has been ambiguous on that point. He is just using a more staggered approach. ANIMALS have access to more expedient healthcare under private plans than humans do under the public option in Canada.

Only an idiot would buy pet health insurance. And vet costs are no where near that of human costs because when pets get a serious illness, usually, they'r just euthanized. I find it ridiculous to even compare human healthcare to that of animals.

quote:

If that's the end goal here, I want no part of what the maniacs on the left are selling...NONE

Of course you want no part in it. You believe the government is trying to take control of your life which could not be further from the truth. Healthcare is costing too much for too little. The only means by which this piece of shit system () is going to change for the better is by government action. None of your freedoms are being infringed upon.

quote:

(and I am presently self-employed and uninsured).

So you'r just one serious illness away from bankruptcy, and yet, you seem to not even care.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Only an idiot would buy pet health insurance. And vet costs are no where near that of human costs because when pets get a serious illness, usually, they'r just euthanized. I find it ridiculous to even compare human healthcare to that of animals.

You obviously don't have a pet--or have never had a pet require an expensive procedure. I wish I had the foresight to get pet insurance for my dog. It's cheap (like $10/month or something). He had cataracts. One of his eyes is now completely blind and there's nothing we can do about it. We had surgery performed on the other eye and it has cost us a total of about $4,000 out-of-pocket in visits to the specialist, surgery, and medication. It's insane. If he were a cat I would've shot him instead!

quote:

So you'r just one serious illness away from bankruptcy, and yet, you seem to not even care.

This statement gets tired. You're just one car accident away from death. You're just one electrical socket away from mental retardation. yada yada yada.

Yeah, dogs can be expensive. My previous dog had a tumor and we paid about 10,000 for a series of operations that probably only extended his life by about a year. But wow did we love that guy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Amazingly, this is a pretty rational discussion:

Interesting video. Not just because of how they actually manage to debate civilly, but because this whole health care problem is really exotic to me as a foreigner... Universal health care was instituted in Brazil right after it got its democratic ruling back (a couple of decades ago), and it's now considered essential - I fail to understand why anyone would be opposed to that

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Interesting video. Not just because of how they actually manage to debate civilly, but because this whole health care problem is really exotic to me as a foreigner... Universal health care was instituted in Brazil right after it got its democratic ruling back (a couple of decades ago), and it's now considered essential - I fail to understand why anyone would be opposed to that

I still fail to understand it as well. It's actually quite embarrassing that the United States is seriously having this debate.

Discussions about the details of the bill and implementation of reform and the shape it will take are one thing. But to deny that reform is needed or a good thing to aspire to is really shameful.

There's nothing wrong with stating the truth, Leb...if an entity accepts a large sum of federal money, why would one not expect some kind of mandate, requirement or direction in how it be used? I can understand how a state might prefer autonomy in the way it doles out some of the fiat money.

Also, the video I posted above plainly reveals what a single-payer system brings in terms of rationing, etc (i.e. waiting for even what many would deem emergency procedures to be provided). The Pres already made it clear this was his preference initially and is only backing down due to scrutiny, even from members within his own party. At the aforementioned privately insured animal clinic in Canada, the differences in are made abundantly clear and if commenting on that paints me in some unfavorable light, guilty as charged.

You mention this language from OpenCongress ensuring the private option as know it stays intact but I can't help but be a little skeptical:

quote:

And when you do, scroll down to subsection C, which states that �Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.� In other words, after the bill becomes law, all new health insurance plans would have to be purchased through the Health Insurance Exchange, which, according to a House committee summary, is a �marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers.� The provision Investor�s Business Daily latched onto in is, in reality, all about increasing choice and competition in the marketplace between both public and private health insurance options, not limiting choice.

I *may* have jumped the gun on the direct IRS <--> bank account connection but that tax cheat, Rangel, is trying to make it more difficult for the average taxpayer under the guise of one incarnation of the health bill nonetheless:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nation...x7Iuvsy30uFmFfI

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Interesting video. Not just because of how they actually manage to debate civilly, but because this whole health care problem is really exotic to me as a foreigner... Universal health care was instituted in Brazil right after it got its democratic ruling back (a couple of decades ago), and it's now considered essential - I fail to understand why anyone would be opposed to that

From what I've gathered, the Brazilian model is severely underfunded as well. Quality of care is also pretty bad. So what happens when it can't be afforded anymore, as if it can be even right now? It's absolutely amazing. You can even get plastic surgery and sex change operations under the public system down there.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 There's nothing wrong with stating the truth, Leb...if an entity accepts a large sum of federal money, why would one not expect some kind of mandate, requirement or direction in how it be used?

What are you basing this on? See, this is my problem. There seems to be an awful lot of assuming going on. Have you read the bill? It seems kind of pointless to make hypothetical statements about what you would expect the bill to say when you could take the hour or two and read through the text.

quote:

Also, the video I posted above plainly reveals what a single-payer system brings in terms of rationing, etc (i.e. waiting for even what many would deem emergency procedures to be provided).

That's great, but I don't watch youtube videos to substitute for argumentation. I know I posted a video in this thread earlier, but I did so fully expecting that nobody would watch it - and I've said over and over that anybody else posting a video in lieu of facts or an argument should expect the same. The primary reason being that nothing is fact-checked or cited in videos - as a result, most videos are full of supposition, exaggeration, and very little fact. The secondary reason being that when I'm at my computer, I'm not muting my music and sitting in a thread for 10 minutes to watch a video that may or may not be coherent. Videos are generally a non-starter in this sub-forum.

quote:

You mention this language from OpenCongress ensuring the private option as know it stays intact but I can't help but be a little skeptical:

Then address your skepticism by reading the portions of the bill cited by the text. It's not like this is classified information.

quote:

I *may* have jumped the gun on the direct IRS <--> bank account connection but that tax cheat, Rangel, is trying to make it more difficult for the average taxpayer under the guise of one incarnation of the health bill nonetheless:

Again, read the text of the bill that is being debated. Spin is full of spin. Not to mention that Rangel is senile and will not be the author of a bill that reaches the floor.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT From what I've gathered, the Brazilian model is severely underfunded as well. Quality of care is also pretty bad. So what happens when it can't be afforded anymore, as if it can be even right now? It's absolutely amazing. You can even get plastic surgery and sex change operations under the public system down there.

Wait, I don't understand your point - are you saying that it is a good thing that you can get plastic surgeries under the public system? Either way, I should warn you that it only happens in extreme cases (i.e. you were involved in a nasty accident and you need to have your nose reconstructed, or something like that).

As for the quality of care being bad, it depends quite a lot on the region, and it has to do with the economy more than with anything else (keep in mind that we're one of the greatest world economies, but we're still working on social equality). The US being the country it is, that's hardly a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You obviously don't have a pet--or have never had a pet require an expensive procedure. I wish I had the foresight to get pet insurance for my dog. It's cheap (like $10/month or something). He had cataracts. One of his eyes is now completely blind and there's nothing we can do about it. We had surgery performed on the other eye and it has cost us a total of about $4,000 out-of-pocket in visits to the specialist, surgery, and medication. It's insane. If he were a cat I would've shot him instead!

Had cats for 11 years. I probably made too strong a statement to say only idiots buy pet insurance, but nonetheless, pet care costs are far exceeded by that of humans, so I fail to recognize the comparison between the two.

quote:

This statement gets tired. You're just one car accident away from death. You're just one electrical socket away from mental retardation. yada yada yada.

All true which is why we try to prevent it right?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton All true which is why we try to prevent it right?

Yes, but shit happens. It's one thing to have safety nets and social programs that give some supplemental assistance when the chips are down, but it's entirely another to institute obligatory multi-trillion dollar spending programs and mandates in a supposedly "free" country that results in rationing of services.

btw, cataract surgery for a dog runs around $2,500-$3,000 whereas the same surgery for a human only costs about $900 (both out-of-pocket). Crazy, huh?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Wait, I don't understand your point - are you saying that it is a good thing that you can get plastic surgeries under the public system? Either way, I should warn you that it only happens in extreme cases (i.e. you were involved in a nasty accident and you need to have your nose reconstructed, or something like that). As for the quality of care being bad, it depends quite a lot on the region, and it has to do with the economy more than with anything else (keep in mind that we're one of the greatest world economies, but we're still working on social equality). The US being the country it is, that's hardly a problem.

Side note--I recently read that the current president of Brazil didn't even graduate from elementary school--is that true?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Side note--I recently read that the current president of Brazil didn't even graduate from elementary school--is that true?

He did graduate later, but he's not your ordinary president. The guy before him studied at Sorbonne, as was one of our leading sociologists. Lula, on the other hand, was the country's greatest union leader. He still needs to cope with all the stigmatisation and the prejudice regarding his educational background (even though he did study afterwards, as far as I know), but he's done a pretty descent job.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Wait, I don't understand your point - are you saying that it is a good thing that you can get plastic surgeries under the public system?

I find it absurd that the government uses tax dollars to pay for these procedures for people.

quote:

Either way, I should warn you that it only happens in extreme cases (i.e. you were involved in a nasty accident and you need to have your nose reconstructed, or something like that).

Give me an example for an "extreme case" where someone would need a sex change.

quote:

As for the quality of care being bad, it depends quite a lot on the region, and it has to do with the economy more than with anything else (keep in mind that we're one of the greatest world economies, but we're still working on social equality). The US being the country it is, that's hardly a problem.

It's pretty much common knowledge that the Brazilian system is dangerously underfunded. The system was designed to help with more immediate procedures and lately, more long term care patients are milking the system. You guys are now having to worry about the elderly who were under private care systems who now can't afford to stay on the plan and are moving over to the public system. Not enough tax dollars can pay for your current program. So while you may think that it is working just fine today, which it really isn't, it's probably going to get much worse in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT I find it absurd that the government uses tax dollars to pay for these procedures for people. Give me an example for an "extreme case" where someone would need a sex change.

You mean like, hermaphrodites?

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT It's pretty much common knowledge that the Brazilian system is dangerously underfunded. The system was designed to help with more immediate procedures and lately, more long term care patients are milking the system. You guys are now having to worry about the elderly who were under private care systems who now can't afford to stay on the plan and are moving over to the public system. Not enough tax dollars can pay for your current program. So while you may think that it is working just fine today, which it really isn't, it's probably going to get much worse in the future.

Well, we are still struggling with social issues... you're right when you say our system is overloaded, as the elderly become a great part of our population (among other things). But, that's far from being our only problem.

We still need to cope with social inequality, poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, among other things. However, and rather surprisingly, Brazil's been doing a good job tackling these issues since the early 90's, after a previous economic boom that failed to address these issues. That's why we're far from having the perfect health care system - if this is an argument against universal health care, you should keep in mind that the countries we live in are so different it renders the comparison absurd.

Anyway, if you want my honest opinion, health care in Brazil will worsen if, and only if, our economy breaks down. Otherwise, it will keep improving, as it's happened during the last couple of decades.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You mean like, hermaphrodites?

No, I mean when a person of a specific sex going to the surgeon to have a procedure that would have them look like the other.

quote:

Well, we are still struggling with social issues... you're right when you say our system is overloaded, as the elderly become a great part of our population (among other things). But, that's far from being our only problem. We still need to cope with social inequality, poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, among other things. However, and rather surprisingly, Brazil's been doing a good job tackling these issues since the early 90's, after a previous economic boom that failed to address these issues. That's why we're far from having the perfect health care system - if this is an argument against universal health care, you should keep in mind that the countries we live in are so different it renders the comparison absurd. Anyway, if you want my honest opinion, health care in Brazil will worsen if, and only if, our economy breaks down. Otherwise, it will keep improving, as it's happened during the last couple of decades.

I appreciate your insight on the issue. My girlfriend is from Sao Paulo. We had a little discussion about it last night and I wasn't surprised to find out, though, that the private system is still much better then the public, according to what I read and what she told me.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.