I'm speechless. I can't imagine this: British treatment of premature birth

[Peek a Boo]

But you said that I could opt in if I needed to, therefore I can suck money out of it. Ah, but you see... many of those millions really like handouts, but don't like to pay for them. Maybe Oprah will finance your plan?;)

 

yes! Oprah, Obama's book deals, the Dixie Chicks, Bill Gates, WarrenBuffet, MJF, and...who else? there's a lot of rich, compassionate liberals out there that could get this thing up and running within a short time!

 

and yeah.....but as soon as i opt in, my wages are immediately garnished. :)

Edited September 19, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Peek a Boo]

This thread (and other similars) really make me think of this.

 

http://xkcd.com/386/

 

:)

 

 

i love that one :D

[Peek a Boo]

Dang.

 

I've agreed with Peek on, I think, the last 5 "hot" issues on this board.

 

I think the world is coming to an end. ;)

 

 

a

 

no, no, no--- the world is NOT coming to an end!

 

 

but i think the geneticists are figuring out how to make pigs fly. ;)

[mommyrooch]

i understand that you agree with the proposed plan because you want those who need the coverage to BE covered.

But would you consider a plan that was voluntary if it still allowed those who needed the coverage to get coverage?

 

Of course I would Peek but I do not have that much faith in human nature.

 

The private market has had many chances to get this right and it has failed miserably. Our current healthcare system has always been open to "a bunch of rich liberal millionaires" footing the bill but history has proven that this will not happen. At anytime in our healthcares history rich donators could have been stepping up to provide for those who otherwise wouldn't get care but this has never happened in all that time. At least not at a level to meet the demand.

 

I have said it before but I will say it again since you are dead set against "hearing" me. It is a matter of supply vs. demand. There are way more people needing help than private donators or charities are able to help. People are either unwilling to step up and help of there aren't enough of them to meet the demand. Either way, the needs are not being met. Bottom line. Period. Final.

 

We have tried to leave this in the hands of the private market since it's birth and it has failed miserably. I see that and I understand that this need is not going to somehow be "magically" met because a bunch of rich people all of a sudden, after all these years, step up and fix this. The problem has gone beyond that. It is simply to far gone.

 

In a utopian world I would love to see everyones healthcare needs get met and everyone be able to keep every penny they make. That would be great but it just isn't reality.

 

You keep saying that I "want" to take peoples money. (Which by the way is a very big assumption on your part) I don't "want" to do that Peek. It is unfortunate that healthcare is that far gone that it would require such actions. However, it will take a nationwide effort to fix this problem and the only way to ensure that happens is by the government stepping in.

 

There will never be enough "rich millionaire liberals" step up to fix this problem. I wish there were. I really do. I would support this in a heartbeat because the bottom line is that I want to see everyone covered. History however has proven over and over and over again that this just will not happen so a different road must be taken because the problem must be fixed. Hence, my "answer", universal healthcare.

[Peek a Boo]

The private market has had many chances to get this right

 

so-- would you be for a voluntary system that is run by the gvt, allowing people to opt out and not taxing or penalizing those who don't want to participate?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

this need is not going to somehow be "magically" met because a bunch of rich people all of a sudden, after all these years, step up and fix this.

:iagree:

[mommyrooch]

so-- would you be for a voluntary system that is run by the gvt, allowing people to opt out and not taxing or penalizing those who don't want to participate?

 

Nope, because then we would be back to square one. If everyone was given the option to "opt" out many would (just as they are currently choosing not to help) and the demand would not be met. This problem is so big that it will take a "nationwide effort" to fix it, therefore "requiring" everyone to pitch in and penalizing those that don't.

 

BTW, for me, it's not about the "government" running it. Yet another misconception on your part. For me, it's about the problem being solved. Not who's solving it.

 

I don't care if some magic tribe of aliens came down and collected everyone's percentage out of a cookie jar. As long as everyones percentage was collected. I don't care if it's the government that does it or if it's the aliens. :D

 

However, since we don't have access to a tribe of aliens to make these collections, in our society, the only organization large enough to accomplish this on a nationwide scale is the government so by default it falls to them.

 

Probably not the answer you were looking for huh? :)

[Peek a Boo]

this need is not going to somehow be "magically" met because a bunch of rich people all of a sudden, after all these years, step up and fix this.

 

I'm not talking about "magic" --I'm talking about our leaders ORGANIZING this to make it happen. Taxing people yet again for a program many don't want or need isn't CHANGE.

 

An official proposition hasn't even passed Obama's lips, has it?

The only things he's proposed have been universal and mandatory.

 

It would be nice to at least see him TRY.

THAT would be truly "reaching across the aisle."

[Peek a Boo]

Nope, because then we would be back to square one. If everyone was given the option to "opt" out many would (just as they are currently choosing not to help) and the demand would not be met. This problem is so big that it will take a "nationwide effort" to fix it, therefore "requiring" everyone to pitch in and penalizing those that don't.

 

 

 

But it doesn't take everyone to "fix" it: other smaller countries can offer health care for 5 million people with 5 million people funding it. why not here?

 

and again: if the people opting out aren't sucking money out of the system and instead utilizing something else, then their demands ARE being met.

 

and people who need to opt in during a crisis would have their wages garnished.

 

needs met, voluntary system. why won't that work??

Edited September 19, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Peek a Boo]

This problem is so big that .....

 

 

fact check:

well, no, it's not.

 

It's only a small percentage of the population that *needs* a program like this.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[mommyrooch]

I'm not talking about "magic" --I'm talking about our leaders ORGANIZING this to make it happen. Taxing people yet again for a program many don't want or need isn't CHANGE.

 

This is a great idea. It really is but it still poses the same problem we face now. It doesn't matter if our leaders "organize" until the cows come home. There will never be enough people step up voluntarily to fix the current crisis. It will not happen unless it becomes mandatory.

 

An official proposition hasn't even passed Obama's lips, has it?

The only things he's proposed have been universal and mandatory.

 

I believe you are correct but I can only speculate that the reasons for this are because he to (as well as many others) believe that voluntary contributions will not be enough. It is really hard to argue with what history has taught us.

 

It would be nice to at least see him TRY.

THAT would be truly "reaching across the aisle."

 

:iagree: with this is theory. I just don't think it could ever fix the problem.

 

BTW, now I'm enjoying this debate. It took a cival turn and I appreciate that. :001_smile:

[Peek a Boo]

I believe you are correct but I can only speculate that the reasons for this are because he to (as well as many others) believe that voluntary contributions will not be enough. It is really hard to argue with what history has taught us.

 

History has taught us quite a bit about what happens in a society when you start losing individual rights too. But until he has made the effort, you can't assume it won't work --especially if "so many" people are convinced it's a moral issue.

 

There's an abundance of pro-life homes, programs, and resources out there. history shows that when people truly put their money where their mouth is, resources are abundant and go unused because demand is met, or because the demand wasn't truly there [people turn down the service because they would rather go a different route]

 

 

:iagree: with this is theory. I just don't think it could ever fix the problem.

 

and I'd like to see it tried before shoving a mandatory program down everyone's throat ;)

 

If everyone GOT BEHIND a voluntary program and ASKED our fearless leaders and role models to work on it, that might help. NOBODY is mentioning it tho. :(

 

BTW, now I'm enjoying this debate. It took a cival turn and I appreciate that. :001_smile:

 

me too :)

it helps when people start actually answering the questions instead of assuming the result. :D

[mommyrooch]

But it doesn't take everyone to "fix" it: other smaller countries can offer health care for 5 million people with 5 million people funding it. why not here???

 

I'm not sure if you meant your numbers to read the way they do but I like what they say. ;) You have said that these countries offer healthcare for 5 million people funding it per every person using it. I like that. :D On this principle that would mean that for every single person needing healthcare there would be another person there to fund it. I believe that could work in most cases.

 

The problem with that however is this. What if someone is in a terrible car wreck and is injured badly but they have not been putting into the system. Do we deny them care because they hadn't been paying their part? I think not. We treat them because remember, I believe in treating everyone. :D However, since this person hadn't been contributing to the system for their care that money will have to come out of another persons "kitty" therefore making the care that person might need less available. And on and on the vicious cycle goes until we're back to square one.

 

and again: if the people opting out aren't sucking money out of the system and instead utilizing something else, then their demands ARE being met

 

But they would be sucking money out of the system. Everytime someone that isn't putting money into the system gets cancer, diabetes, injured etc. the "system" must come up with the money to treat them from somewhere. Unless we are willing to let those people suffer and possibly die of these things then those funds must be spent whether the person "using" the system helped build it or not.

 

and people who need to opt in during a crisis would have their wages garnished.

 

Now this I totally disagree with. :thumbdown: I do not support "punishing" a family just because they were unlucky enough to be struck with a medical crisis. Whether they "paid their part or not" they should not be punished in their greatest time of need. That is one of the key points of universal healthcare. A family should not have to make decisions between whether their loved one will get proper medical care or whether or not the bills get paid. Medical catastrophies should not backrupt families. You're talking to a lady who's son was diagnosed with Leukemia. I lived one of these catastrophies. I have seen this happen so many times to families so you can imagine why I am sensitive to it. That is part of the current problem that needs fixed.

 

needs met, voluntary system. why won't that work??

 

Because a voluntary system will not operate on a large enough scale to meet the needs.

[mommyrooch]

it helps when people start actually answering the questions instead of assuming the result. :D

 

:iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

On this principle that would mean that for every single person needing healthcare there would be another person there to fund it.

right -- the participants cover each other's costs.

 

 

The problem with that however is this. What if someone is in a terrible car wreck and is injured badly but they have not been putting into the system. Do we deny them care because they hadn't been paying their part? I think not. We treat them because remember, I believe in treating everyone. :D However, since this person hadn't been contributing to the system for their care that money will have to come out of another persons "kitty" therefore making the care that person might need less available. And on and on the vicious cycle goes until we're back to square one.

 

but if it works in smaller countries with a lower population, why can't it work here w/ a lower population??

 

 

But they would be sucking money out of the system. Everytime someone that isn't putting money into the system gets cancer, diabetes, injured etc. the "system" must come up with the money to treat them from somewhere. Unless we are willing to let those people suffer and possibly die of these things then those funds must be spent whether the person "using" the system helped build it or not.

 

yes --and that "somewhere" is simply other people in the system who DON't have cancer, diabetes, or get injured that often. Remember; if the plan is supposed to be "cheaper per person than what we have now" then even your healthy people should want to be on it, right??

 

 

 

Now this I totally disagree with. :thumbdown: I do not support "punishing" a family just because they were unlucky enough to be struck with a medical crisis. Whether they "paid their part or not" they should not be punished in their greatest time of need. That is one of the key points of universal healthcare. A family should not have to make decisions between whether their loved one will get proper medical care or whether or not the bills get paid. ......

 

 

no, no, no....... not that their wages are garnished IMMEDIATELY, but that they forfeit the ability to opt out after the crisis has passed [or their income increases.]. I'm assuming that a universal healthcare system will utilize some sort of sliding scale? and will offer a "convenient" direct deduction from your bank account?

 

So if I opted out of the great voluntary gvt run program and my private insurer wasn't enough to cover my child's cancer, i could transfer to the gvt program but wouldn't be able to transfer back to the private company until I had paid into the gvt program the same amount they covered for me. They would cover my child's expenses so i could still eat, i could pay a little into the system immediately, but i couldn't opt out if everything turned out ok.

 

The plan as proposed now already "garnishes wages" as penalties.

I agree -- it's a thumbs down.

 

Because a voluntary system will not operate on a large enough scale to meet the needs.

 

The type of plan i'm proposing hasn't been tried yet. Try it first. THAT can get through Congress almost immediately and start getting people the help they need NOW. How many people do you think you need to operate a substantial health care system that takes care of people's NEEDS? obviously not our entire population.

[Annabel Lee]

but I'd like to add this: To help the problem (obviously it will never be completely eliminated) of freeloader on any healthcare system, there should be heavy penalty for fraud, and the allowance for enforcement and penalty should be broadened to catch more of it. This would free up money to be used legally. The problem with some of the current healthcare proposals is that while they (one proposal inparticular) explicitly prohibit certain types of "freeloading", they don't have any verbage allowing for enforcement of those prohibitions. That is why some people think the notion that the proposed plan is protected from those certain freeloaders is a LIE.

[Peek a Boo]

but I'd like to add this: To help the problem (obviously it will never be completely eliminated) of freeloader on any healthcare system, there should be heavy penalty for fraud, and the allowance for enforcement and penalty should be broadened to catch more of it. This would free up money to be used legally. The problem with some of the current healthcare proposals is that while they (one proposal inparticular) explicitly prohibit certain types of "freeloading", they don't have any verbage allowing for enforcement of those prohibitions. That is why some people think the notion that the proposed plan is protected from those certain freeloaders is a LIE.

 

are there any systems/countries already in place that you think have a good enforcement policy? examples to be emulated?

 

eta: our policy wrt illegal immigrants would hinder us too. No other country lets illegals get away w/ as much as we do.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Melissa in Australia]

The problem with that however is this. What if someone is in a terrible car wreck and is injured badly but they have not been putting into the system. Do we deny them care because they hadn't been paying their part? I think not. We treat them because remember, I believe in treating everyone.

 

s.

in Australia, a country with universal health cover. car accident victims aren't covered in the health cover system. everyone who has a car pays with their car registration, compulsory TAC insurance, which covers people only in car accidents.

[Melissa in Australia]

sorry, double post

Edited September 19, 2009 by melissaL

[Annabel Lee]

are there any systems/countries already in place that you think have a good enforcement policy? examples to be emulated?

 

eta: our policy wrt illegal immigrants would hinder us too. No other country lets illegals get away w/ as much as we do.

 

Peek, you picked up on exactly what I was trying to be vague about - illegal immigrants. As for other countries that have done well enforcing against this type of healthcare insurance fraud... I'd have to research that. Norway? Sweden? My dad was recently discussing one of those countries and how it is very socialist, but not communist. They've made their system one that works well precisely because they do not allow non-payers to particitpate in the system (i.e., illegal immigrants). This from a man who is usually staunchly opposed to any form of socialism; so they must have something figured out over there.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Annabel Lee
bad grammar

[Karenciavo]

And this is how is should be and could be even more if government got out of the way. You're not "letting me down" (boy, you really like to keep those conservative stereotypes right at the forefront don't you.) Now, since you are willing to be signed up for even more fell free to do it.

 

Yes maam. I am

 

I am very active in "helping my neighbors"

 

Every Wednesday my church has what we call "Wednesdays are for others" I work there every Wednesday night.

 

We serve many of the poor families in our community a free meal that night. While they are there eating they get to go and "shop" in our clothes closet. We are also partnered with a local Wal-Mart and we receive over 1100 lbs. of food that we distribute to those families. This provides the entire weeks food for them until they come back the next week to get more. They never have to worry about food. We are currently serving 47 families and always striving for more.

 

We also have a free medical clinic that we open up every other Wednesday. This clinic is complete with a Pharmacy. We provide medical care for the less fortunite people in our community. Everything from the doctors visit to the medication is completely free. I work in there too. ;)

 

In addition to this I also go up to the Jesus house and feed the homeless.

 

I not only give my time to "my neighbors" but I give more than my 10% to my church in order to help fund these causes.

 

You see, I actually "practice what I preach." I'm sorry to let you down but I do put my money (and my time) where my mouth is. I believe in it that much.

 

It is because I do work so closely with these families that I am so motivated to help them and others like them. I have seen how these families are devasted by our current system.

 

Most of these families are amazing people. They work hard are are quite ashamed that they have to come there. They often ask us if there is anything they can do to repay us. They are not free loaders. They are just down on their luck and they need help.

 

[Karenciavo]

I know that many of the poor are not free loaders, I've been poor as in homeless poor. I know the attitude of my own family and many of those around me in the various poor communities I've lived in. I also observed something else, the longer a person is getting handouts the more apt they are to stay in the system and want more. 2nd generation poor who grow up in an entitlement household want even more and are willing to do less to get out of their situation. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the general trend.

 

Most of these families are amazing people. They work hard are are quite ashamed that they have to come there. They often ask us if there is anything they can do to repay us. They are not free loaders. They are just down on their luck and they need help.

 

This is why I get so irritated at the common misconception that if healthcare were free many people would become free loaders and take advantage of the system. There will always be advantage takes but it is wrong to punish the many because of the actions of a few.

[Peek a Boo]

Peek, you picked up on exactly what I was trying to be vague about - illegal immigrants. As for other countries that have done well enforcing against this type of healthcare insurance fraud... I'd have to research that. Norway? Sweden? My dad was recently discussing one of those countries and how it is very socialist, but not communist. They've made their system one that works well precisely because they do not allow non-payers to particitpate in the system (i.e., illegal immigrants). This from a man who is usually staunchly opposed to any form of socialism; so they must have something figured out over there.

 

let us know if you find any great articles :)

[cillakat]

Maybe 22-week fetuses don't have a huge chance of survival

 

Really? Until the FL baby survived, 22 wk micropreemies were considered non-viable and essentially still are. I honestly don't think this is heartless. Just realistic.

 

Socialized medical care or not, we can't all get multi million dollar care. It sucks. It's awful. But it's real. Socialized or not, we all pay for this multi-million dollar care.

 

Many on this board don't have insurance. Many here in the US - where cost cutting has been the norm in the last 30 years and where medicine is not socialized - haven't been able to get the care the need. Regardless of who is running that care, it ends up costing the average person either through taxes or through increased insurance rates.

 

Can insurance companies afford to keep every 25 weeker going? 24? 23? Can we?

 

The questions are very very hard - and the answers don't come easy either.

 

K

[mommaduck]

Really? Until the FL baby survived, 22 wk micropreemies were considered non-viable and essentially still are. I honestly don't think this is heartless. Just realistic.

 

Socialized medical care or not, we can't all get multi million dollar care. It sucks. It's awful. But it's real. Socialized or not, we all pay for this multi-million dollar care.

 

Many on this board don't have insurance. Many here in the US - where cost cutting has been the norm in the last 30 years and where medicine is not socialized - haven't been able to get the care the need. Regardless of who is running that care, it ends up costing the average person either through taxes or through increased insurance rates.

 

Can insurance companies afford to keep every 25 weeker going? 24? 23? Can we?

 

The questions are very very hard - and the answers don't come easy either.

 

K

You may want to note the date of the last post ;) That's how old this thread is :)