Consensus emerging on universal healthcare - but single payer is off the table

[trailmix 77]

- Even if someone is not insured here, I understand that they do get care. Can you please give me a hint at who might be paying for this and where that money comes from?

You understand wrong.

The uninsured don't get any care unless it's a life-threatening condition and they have no choice.

isn't that only applicable to hospitalization? as i said before, if you require medication for something life threatening either you pay for it yourself or you don't get it at all...

where do these people get these ideas from that healthcare is free for the "poor"?

I personally don't think that healthcare is free for the 'poor' (not sure if you were addressing me there rocks). Basically my point is what mawilson said - they don't get treatment until it is a HUGE problem. Someone pays for that.

THAT is a cockeyed system - why would you wait until someone was in need of emergency care before addressing what might be easily fixed.

Which goes back to Williams 'point' - people who think that no one pays for uninsured persons healthcare are wrong.

I support universal healthcare 100% (just in case my reply is again not clear )

Edited December 2, 2008 by trailmix

[rocks 494]

Oil is only one of the resources. I am sure if you ask enough people around the world about other things, you'd get an interesting consensus about what constitutes fair consumption versus what we currently have on the globe.

That's all besides the fact- if we are willing to act like we can cut off the elderly at out will, then I am sure the same logic can be applied to other areas where arbitrary definitions of consumption are defined not by absolute values but by the entire combination of factors that create such a relationship to begin with.

lets not get onto how much pollution is produced by america, which the whole world has to suffer.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oil is only one of the resources. I am sure if you ask enough people around the world about other things, you'd get an interesting consensus about what constitutes fair consumption versus what we currently have on the globe.

All consumption is fair if you pay for it.

We just happen to have the money to pay for it and the "people around the world" don't.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oil is only one of the resources. I am sure if you ask enough people around the world about other things, you'd get an interesting consensus about what constitutes fair consumption versus what we currently have on the globe.

All consumption is fair if you pay for it.

We just happen to have the money to pay for it and the "people around the world" don't.

We just don't happen to have the money. By that logic don't whine so much against the Chinese when they happen to get it too.

Laterz to all youz. * HAL 9000 hat off for a while *

[rocks 494]

I personally don't think that healthcare is free for the 'poor' (not sure if you were addressing me there rocks). Basically my point is what mawilson said - they don't get treatment until it is a HUGE problem. Someone pays for that.

THAT is a cockeyed system - why would you wait until someone was in need of emergency care before addressing what might be easily fixed.

Which goes back to Williams 'point' - people who think that no one pays for uninsured persons healthcare are wrong.

I support universal healthcare 100% (just in case my reply is again not clear )

no, i was just making a general statement.

it was in reference to the fact that i've seen several people here who seem to think that healthcare is "free" if you can't afford it. if only that was true.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oil is only one of the resources. I am sure if you ask enough people around the world about other things, you'd get an interesting consensus about what constitutes fair consumption versus what we currently have on the globe.

All consumption is fair if you pay for it.

We just happen to have the money to pay for it and the "people around the world" don't.

We just don't happen to have the money. By that logic don't whine so much against the Chinese when they happen to get it too.

Why not? We are competing for resources with the Chinese - they are THE enemy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

- Even if someone is not insured here, I understand that they do get care. Can you please give me a hint at who might be paying for this and where that money comes from?

You understand wrong.

The uninsured don't get any care unless it's a life-threatening condition and they have no choice.

Under the same logic people that act like leeches to the rest of the world should also be terminated.

Yes! DO IT!

He means us (Americans) "acting as leeches".

Which is why I do not subscribe to thinking along those lines of logic. As underlined above.

Just because we use 25% of the world's oil doesn't make us "leeches".

We don't steal oil from other countries, we pay for it.

Oil is only one of the resources. I am sure if you ask enough people around the world about other things, you'd get an interesting consensus about what constitutes fair consumption versus what we currently have on the globe.

That's all besides the fact- if we are willing to act like we can cut off the elderly at out will, then I am sure the same logic can be applied to other areas where arbitrary definitions of consumption are defined not by absolute values but by the entire combination of factors that create such a relationship to begin with.

Food is another. There was a bit on the news last night that due to the rising cost of food rich Middle-Eastern nations are buying up (or otherwise negotiating exclusive contracts with private farm owners) huge tracts of fertile agricultural land in Sudan and exporting the crops to feed their own people. Meanwhile - on the other side of Sudan, millions of people barely have enough to sustain them.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oil is only one of the resources. I am sure if you ask enough people around the world about other things, you'd get an interesting consensus about what constitutes fair consumption versus what we currently have on the globe.

All consumption is fair if you pay for it.

We just happen to have the money to pay for it and the "people around the world" don't.

We just don't happen to have the money. By that logic don't whine so much against the Chinese when they happen to get it too.

Why not? We are competing for resources with the Chinese - they are THE enemy.

And that is exactly where the logic is. Create an arbitrary way of rationalizing who gets something and who doesn't, add colorful language much like you just did with 'enemy' and all... and then you have more of the same kind of give and take thinking that doesn't serve all quite well.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oil is only one of the resources. I am sure if you ask enough people around the world about other things, you'd get an interesting consensus about what constitutes fair consumption versus what we currently have on the globe.

All consumption is fair if you pay for it.

We just happen to have the money to pay for it and the "people around the world" don't.

We just don't happen to have the money. By that logic don't whine so much against the Chinese when they happen to get it too.

Why not? We are competing for resources with the Chinese - they are THE enemy.

And that is exactly where the logic is. Create an arbitrary way of rationalizing who gets something and who doesn't, add colorful language much like you just did with 'enemy' and all... and then you have more of the same kind of give and take thinking that doesn't serve all quite well.

I care about things that serve *me* well. I'd shoot a Chinaman in cyberspace before I let him take those things.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We get into this circular argument over the cost of a single payer system over and over. It's really simple math. If the current cost per American for health care is higher than any of the industrialized nations who have national healthcare and we can provide universal coverage for all Americans at a significantly lower cost, then I don't understand the fuss. Whether your paycheck is being deducted for insurance premiums or for a special tax that pays for a single payer system, all the data shows is that it will be less money out of our pockets.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We get into this circular argument over the cost of a single payer system over and over. It's really simple math. If the current cost per American for health care is higher than any of the industrialized nations who have national healthcare and we can provide universal coverage for all Americans at a significantly lower cost, then I don't understand the fuss. Whether your paycheck is being deducted for insurance premiums or for a special tax that pays for a single payer system, all the data shows is that it will be less money out of our pockets.

Presumably all those "socialist" countries have less corrupt/inept government than the US does.

I don't believe that either

[mawilson 2,133]

We get into this circular argument over the cost of a single payer system over and over. It's really simple math. If the current cost per American for health care is higher than any of the industrialized nations who have national healthcare and we can provide universal coverage for all Americans at a significantly lower cost, then I don't understand the fuss. Whether your paycheck is being deducted for insurance premiums or for a special tax that pays for a single payer system, all the data shows is that it will be less money out of our pockets.

Presumably all those "socialist" countries have less corrupt/inept government than the US does.

I don't believe that either

Well maybe their healthcare systems are #######? I'd take my PPO plan over the NHS any day.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oil is only one of the resources. I am sure if you ask enough people around the world about other things, you'd get an interesting consensus about what constitutes fair consumption versus what we currently have on the globe.

That's all besides the fact- if we are willing to act like we can cut off the elderly at out will, then I am sure the same logic can be applied to other areas where arbitrary definitions of consumption are defined not by absolute values but by the entire combination of factors that create such a relationship to begin with.

lets not get onto how much pollution is produced by america, which the whole world has to suffer.

Well don't forget that since that pollution is paid for, then according to some lines of logic, its completely fair. Besides- since we paid for it, its better than others' picking up our slack if we reduce that pollution along those sames weird yet common lines of thinking.

Oil is only one of the resources. I am sure if you ask enough people around the world about other things, you'd get an interesting consensus about what constitutes fair consumption versus what we currently have on the globe.

All consumption is fair if you pay for it.

We just happen to have the money to pay for it and the "people around the world" don't.

We just don't happen to have the money. By that logic don't whine so much against the Chinese when they happen to get it too.

Why not? We are competing for resources with the Chinese - they are THE enemy.

And that is exactly where the logic is. Create an arbitrary way of rationalizing who gets something and who doesn't, add colorful language much like you just did with 'enemy' and all... and then you have more of the same kind of give and take thinking that doesn't serve all quite well.

I care about things that serve *me* well. I'd shoot a Chinaman in cyberspace before I let him take those things.

HAL 9000 does not find that surprising in any way.

[LikeALadybug 2]

As things are now in the USA you are basically paying for health care no matter what anyway - unless you are too poor to afford it. You could pay a "fair" price through your taxes and be sure everyone is covered in some fashion or you can keep on paying through private insurance as you do now and be charged whatever the insurance company feels like.

The problem with paying the private insurance company is that they can charge you what they feel like...and then when it comes down to paying the bill, they'll most likely try and get out of it until they realize you are not the pushover they had hoped for. You are out of money either way, but you could possibly get a better deal if there was some sort of universal health care. At least you would have less hassle and one less thing to worry about if you ever lose your job.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We get into this circular argument over the cost of a single payer system over and over. It's really simple math. If the current cost per American for health care is higher than any of the industrialized nations who have national healthcare and we can provide universal coverage for all Americans at a significantly lower cost, then I don't understand the fuss. Whether your paycheck is being deducted for insurance premiums or for a special tax that pays for a single payer system, all the data shows is that it will be less money out of our pockets.

Presumably all those "socialist" countries have less corrupt/inept government than the US does.

I don't believe that either

Well maybe their healthcare systems are #######? I'd take my PPO plan over the NHS any day.

Maybe they are. But I don't think its that simple to be honest.