quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous Please take some business classes and then perhaps we can talk. Until you have any sort of understanding of how an economy and individual businesses work, keep your ignorant babble to yourself.

Health isn't a business, you ****. Your, "I've been to college and now know everything." Argument holds no water here.

Let me ask you something.

Have you seen how health care works?

Have you had an illness that required treatment (Ex: Marking for cancer patients) and your health insurance company refused to cover the costs?

You are fucking clueless, I'll take you on, I've dealt with this shit for 19 years.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

Health isn't a business. Health care is. You don't know what you're talking about--having to pay for treatment out of pocket is not the same as understanding an industry, despite what some politicians would have you think. Yes, that sucks, but having no doctors and no new drugs would suck more. In any case, I'll leave you be. It's pointless for me to argue with you.

___________________

> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers Health isn't a business, you ****. Your, "I've been to college and now know everything." Argument holds no water here.

Healthcare is.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru Healthcare is.

You don't understand. Health isn't a business. I have the right to receive any type of financial aide any health problems that may come up, and a health insurance company has no right to deny me coverage. Health insurance isn't a business (It is, but shouldn't be). I shouldn't have to worry that my doctor is going to stop accepting my health insurance because of bullshit business between them.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

debate on health care reform deserves its own thread. needless to say its not a very good system. individuals are the most vulnerable and bare the highest risk. most companies would rather not have to offer health insurance because of its high cost. the government needs to step in and at least create a frame work.

A lot of younger ppl who are in college don't really get what its like because they're still covered under their parents or college's health insurance. But just wait until your on your own, you get older or have a health problem. Health insurance company's don't want to insure you because you're high risk and low profit. Companies don't want to hire you because you'll raise their health insurance cost. And there is no way you'll be able to pay out of pocket for health treatment like you would pay for anything else because it too dam expensive.

So if neither the government nor the private sector feels like you have a right to health care then I would say that would be a pretty fucked up society to live in. I agree with Mark that your right to health care shouldn't depend on how much money you have. How would you like to go to a hospital and have it split up like a plane into first class and second class?

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow debate on health care reform deserves its own thread. needless to say its not a very good system. individuals are the most vulnerable and bare the highest risk. most companies would rather not have to offer health insurance because of its high cost. the government needs to step in and at least create a frame work. A lot of younger ppl who are in college don't really get what its like because they're still covered under their parents or college's health insurance. But just wait until your on your own, you get older or have a health problem. Health insurance company's don't want to insure you because you're high risk and low profit. Companies don't want to hire you because you'll raise their health insurance cost. And there is no way you'll be able to pay out of pocket for health treatment like you would pay for anything else because it too dam expensive. So if neither the government nor the private sector feels like you have a right to health care then I would say that would be a pretty fucked up society to live in. I agree with Mark that your right to health care shouldn't depend on how much money you have. How would you like to go to a hospital and have it split up like a plane into first class and second class?

you're both missing the point (though yours is at least coherent), which is that what's ideal isn't always ideal. You can't just say, "everyone should have health care, so let's do whatever it takes to get everyone health care." You have to think beyond that and take a look at what effects that will have, including the long-term changes that will inevitably take place.

___________________

> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <

quote:

Originally posted by eckmek Hey guys, seriously what's your thoughts on the chances of reforming the health care system, who could get it done, and how do you think they'll do it? I think it's interesting, and also i'm writing a project on this

Governance in the US is divided between state and federal governments. Historically, when one is fucked up, the other steps in to provide leadership.

Right now, the federal government is highly ineffective, and during periods of divided government - the Dems controlling Congress and the Republicans controlling the Presidency - nothing regarding health care will be passed, especially because of the war being so unpopular. But because so many Americans are without health care and it is increasingly affecting middle class Americans who bear the tax burden - my own family is uninsured, yet we were in the highest federal tax bracket until a couple of years ago - it is only a matter of time before the private health care system creates universal access.

The best opportunity for reform is in the state governments. Lots of states have taken initiatives to expand access to health care and to reduce health care costs. There are major obstacles to forming a single-payer federal health care system like they have in other countries because of the lobbying power of HMOs and pharmaceutical companies, but at the state level, we've seen more success.

In my opinion, the best possible way to guarantee health care would be for Congress to say health care is a right, and require universal health care and require states to have it. The costs would be split between being absorbed by the states and supplemented by federal appropriations. That way, the bureaucracy of the federal government would be involved less and states would take a more active role in regulating what is best for their citizens. And it would be easy to do - you just have to simply expand the qualifications for entering into pre-existing state or federal programs. The poor and the elderly already qualify for state-funded health insurance and they could expand the pool to include the middle class, which pays for large portions of it already.

___________________
If you choose to pull the trigger - should your drama prove sincere - do it somewhere far away from here.

please, no.

___________________

> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <

Your right about there being more hope in the States to enact change. The special interests have their hold too tightly on the Federal government to expect any significant action from them. I'd disagree with you that its the fault is the division between the two parties. The Republicans have held a majority in the House, Senate, and the White House for almost 8 years. Even before then they were instrumental to defeating Clinton attempt to reform health care when they had a majority in the Congress. They're actual the reason why we haven't had any success on the universal health care.

To them social programs for the common person are a waste of money. Of course they don't say it that way, they prefer to say 'we're against big government'. Hmmm thats strange you are big government and your against yourself? Thats a laugh. They also have a history of doing the opposite of what they said. Both Reagan and Bush were against big government but under their administrations big government increased its rate of growth.

The other explanation they give for not supporting social programs like universal health care is its just too expensive and runs contrary to a capitalist society. The irony here is that there never seems to be a problem spending huge sums of money on the military. Trillions of dollars on weapon systems we don't need or don't even work, like star wars. Hell we've almost spent a trillion on just the Iraq war which has no end in sight. But what could be more patriotic that defending your country and lining the pockets of defense contractors who as we have seen repeatedly over bill the government and out right steal money.

Conservatives would have us believe that we don't need government meddling in our affairs, when they really just want to shift the risk and cost from corporations to the individual. God don't you love compassionate conservatism. George Orwell would be so proud of their double speak.

Last edited by igottaknow on May-12-2007 at 02:49

cue aneurysm. Yeah, I'll be going now...

___________________

> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous please, no.

Please, yes..

quote:

igottaknow

Of course ideology plays a huge role in the functioning of governance, and Republicans are more supportive of free-market solutions to the health care problem, and to a lot of Republicans, health care reform is not an issue that they care about deeply. But divided government on issues like this simply mean that the issue will be shelved. And instituting universal health care would indeed be a massive shift from the norm - we've been trying to do it for over seventy years now and Republicans have blocked it at every turn.

___________________
If you choose to pull the trigger - should your drama prove sincere - do it somewhere far away from here.

thank goodness.

___________________

> S u s h i p u n k . P h o t o g r a p h y <