Conquer Club

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:And a place where people turn bankrupt because they need treatment but can't afford it is not good.

Massive exaggeration

Please provide the proof that all these Americans are going bankrupt. Nobody is denied medical care in the U.S. IT'S AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW!

70% of all Bankruptcies ARE due to medical costs.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:They are bollocks because most people really don't experience them. They are a problem for some people, but at least they're not a denial of care.

It doesn't do anyone a bit of good if they are covered but have to wait so long that their health problem isn't treated. I also read up on this as well, the reason it's not as much of a problem in your country (The Netherlands), is because you are the most market-oriented system besides Switzerland. You guys especially introduced even more competition starting in 2006. You can't really say you're a govt-run health care country.

Ever talk to anyone insured by Blue Cross? ... and who wasn't in their "top tier" system?

We had, NO exaggeration, EVERY claim denied for a full year. I spent hours on the phone, wrote letters... etc. and I am most definitely not alone.

The only difference is that with Blue Cross its the company getting the bucks instead of the taxpayers..

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:As opposed to "We have a great healthcare system! Just don't expect to see a doctor if you're poor!"?

It's against the law to deny someone treatment in the U.S. Nobody is preventing poor people from seeing a doctor. Many doctors will work out a payment schedule that is interest free until the bill is paid off.

Make that USED to! Again, talk to someone in the real world who has actually BEEN to a hospital lately and had to pay for services? They now hire bill collectors that are actually WORSE than the worst credit card collectors. My doctor sends his bills to the hospital who uses a third party billing agent. I have had many payments mis-applied or lost. In one case, I sent 2 copies of my cancelled check and finally had to have the bank contact this group directly.

LIFE THREATENING things are covered in the hospital. By that point, the costs are far more, the outcome not generally good. It is CHEAPER to pay for preventative care and diagnosis.

bradleybadly wrote:We have a high insurance problem - not a health care denial problem.

We have both. And, you can add malpractice payments, lack of doctors going into general medicine, etc.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, you are able to see a doctor, it's just that you'll have to wait for a donor-organ because there are not enough donor-organs, instead of not even qualifying for that donor-organ. Waiting lists are a problem because the system is too small to deal with the high demand for some things. Your solution is just not giving people the care, which is a dick move.

Correctomundo!! The waiting lists are a problem because THE SYSTEM is too small to deal with the high demand for some things. Whereas, when there's a for-profit system in place the demand is met in a more sufficient way.

WRONG... Health insurance does not work on supply and demand because there is no free choice to just go and choose a doctor when you are sick or your child is sick. There is definitely no real free choice to not go . .. unless you think living and not being in pain are somehow optional?

bradleybadly wrote:4th time, Snorri, nobody is denied giving people health care in the United States. It's a health insurance problem.

You just contradicted yourself. If this were a free market system, then folks would not be covered. The fact that we have a moral obligation to provide basic health care is WHY it must be nationalized.

PLAYER57832 wrote:70% of all Bankruptcies ARE due to medical costs.

70%!!

You guys with your outrageous exaggerations. At least you're forcing me to do a little homework on this. I checked the figures. It's more like 17%.

Sources I found on this just from looking on google:

"The Household Bankruptcy Decision", S. Fay, E. Hurst, & M White, American Economic Review 92, no. 3, pgs. 706-718, 2002 & then updated 2005

Employment Policy Foundation Fact Sheet, 2004 & 2006

"Misdiagnosed: A Medical-Bankruptcy Study Doesn't Live up to Its Billing", National Review Online, February 2005

a little excerpt from the 1st source says: "there is little support for the theory that households file for bankruptcy when 'adverse affects' - including health problems - reduce their ability to pay debts"

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ever talk to anyone insured by Blue Cross? ... and who wasn't in their "top tier" system?

We had, NO exaggeration, EVERY claim denied for a full year. I spent hours on the phone, wrote letters... etc. and I am most definitely not alone.

The only difference is that with Blue Cross its the company getting the bucks instead of the taxpayers..

I'm very sorry for the ordeal you went through. Everything I've read shows that wages have not risen as fast as health care costs. Companies originally provided catastrophic-style insurance after WWII and over the years workers demanded more broad coverage. While your situation is not acceptable you haven't provided us with the medical problem or the reason that they denied the claims. You don't have to provide it over the internet because it's your business. I'm just saying you're only presenting your side of the story.

I had a friend who went through a similar experience. He dropped his insurance and started paying out of pocket. The doctors set him up on a payment schedule that is interest-free. He actually got a better price for the best service because he shopped around and one facility actually dropped their price when they found out he would go to a competitor in another city.

I'm not saying our system is perfect, but a nationalized system wouldn't be any better - in fact it would be worse. High costs are not unique to the United States and European countries are now opting for a more free market approach because they've discovered they actually can't provide universal health care for everyone. For every story like yours I could point to someone who suffered from waiting so long for health care they almost died. In fact let me just provide one:

"Over a three painful years, I had been in a 'queue' in London awaiting gall bladder removal. Despite being taken by ambulance to the emergency room on three occasions during this time, I was returned home with painkillers. Finally, unable to move, jaundiced and prepared to die, I endured a five-hour wait, vomiting on the floor of my local hospital while the harassed nurses searched for a bed. I got my operation. It was free. But at what price?" - Pam Hardyment, "Yes my operation was free, but the wait took three painful years." The Guardian. 25 April 2002.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Make that USED to!

Can you provide me with a source that shows that states have changed the law then? When was the law changed to deny care?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, talk to someone in the real world who has actually BEEN to a hospital lately and had to pay for services? They now hire bill collectors that are actually WORSE than the worst credit card collectors. My doctor sends his bills to the hospital who uses a third party billing agent. I have had many payments mis-applied or lost. In one case, I sent 2 copies of my cancelled check and finally had to have the bank contact this group directly.

That's a billing problem, not a health care problem. If you keep accurate records you can throw it back in their face. The real world! - I live in the real world, sister. You're taking a billing issue and trying to say that that's the same as your treatment.

PLAYER57832 wrote:LIFE THREATENING things are covered in the hospital. By that point, the costs are far more, the outcome not generally good. It is CHEAPER to pay for preventative care and diagnosis.

Everything I've read says the opposite of what you're claiming. It also says the United States leads the world in preventative care and diagnosis. I'm not saying we're perfect but it would be a hell of a lot worse under a nationalized health care system.

PLAYER57832 wrote:We have both. And, you can add malpractice payments, lack of doctors going into general medicine, etc.

Nope, we have a health insurance cost problem. Nobody is denied care.

PLAYER57832 wrote:WRONG... Health insurance does not work on supply and demand because there is no free choice to just go and choose a doctor when you are sick or your child is sick. There is definitely no real free choice to not go . .. unless you think living and not being in pain are somehow optional?

Ummm........PPO Plans & their PCA subcomponents, HDHPs, Direct Pay Subscribers, HMO Plans, Health Savings Accounts. No choice, eh? No system will ever be perfect, but it's better than a nationalized system where prices are set and is guaranteed to drive up demand to a point that quality care can't meet it.

If people would start paying for their own health care prices would start coming down because providers would be forced to compete for patients. But like I said, there will always be problems regardless because no system is perfect. We just have to strive for which system is the best. People come from around the globe to be treated in the United States.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You just contradicted yourself. If this were a free market system, then folks would not be covered.

No, I didn't. They're treated, not covered.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The fact that we have a moral obligation to provide basic health care is WHY it must be nationalized.

Yes, I know. We have a moral obligation to look the other way when illegal immigrants cross our borders and break our laws. We have a moral obligation to get out of Iraq and stop killing terrorists because if we'd just "play it cool" they'd surrender. We have a moral obligation to not rape the planet and save the rainforest. We have a moral obligation to change the law so homosexuals can get married. We have a moral obligation to raise taxes on those rich bastards because they're REAPING profits!! It's almost always a moral obligation to start your government programs but you guys rarely think twice about your moral obligation to leave us the f*ck alone with your social reconstruction ideas.

At least you didn't use the usual "for the sake of the children" line this time but I'm sure it will only be a matter of time.

ONWARD TO UTOPIA!!

You don't have to live up to your obligations. And, as you rather boringly pointed out several times, perhaps those "obligations" don't really exist.
But ya see, theose boring old obligations are what separates civilized society from a tribe eating dirt in the Amazon. You want your cosy standard of living, yer Big Macs, yer expensive guns, your gallons of pop corn and endless diet of American Gladiators?
Then you need to harness your environment to enable optimal efficiency of the economy, and perhaps to spend a few dollars overseas to make sure it all doesn't go up in smoke.

But why us? Why the US?
Well, it just kinda happens - the biggest landowner has the most land to look after, and he his borders get big, so he has to watch his borders very carefully.
You could (well, prob not, but lets assume its an option) go back to 1916), cut yourself from the world and not give a shit about the environment.
But people were much poorer then, in the USA, and didnt have the money to buy popcorn. You really wouldn't like the world you are advocating Baldo, so heres a thought:

Go away for a year, read some history books on the USA and Europe - and come back in a year and tell me what you know.
Cos at the moment, you know DIDDLY SQUAT, and you're a laughing stock.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:And a place where people turn bankrupt because they need treatment but can't afford it is not good.

Massive exaggeration

Please provide the proof that all these Americans are going bankrupt. Nobody is denied medical care in the U.S. IT'S AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW!

The hilarious thing is that you seem to miss the point so massively. I know it is against the law to deny medical care over there, but when you charge a lot of money the end result is the same. This is why a lot of people in the US only go to the hospital when it's really late. They have to pay money for it, so they don't go.

Snorri1234 wrote: if I remember correctly, the US has a higher infant mortality rate than most other developed countries.

That's because many European countries don't even report figures for high-risk, below-weight infants. Many of the low-weight infants in Europe aren't even able to be carried to term because you guys don't have medical technologies to help them survive that long - after all, you have a govt-run health care system! Here in the U.S., the babies at least have a chance to be born, but many die soon after birth. European countries also use abortion as a way to eliminate problem pregnancies which is also not included in their reporting to WHO. Example: Cuba!, which Michael Moore loves to use as an example in his propaganda film.

But the US has a higher abortion rate than most european countries, so why would that make a difference?

Snorri1234 wrote:Actually, they start with the assumption that when not everyone has healthcare or some people pay way more than others, it's a bad thing. Everyone in my country pays for their healthcare too (except really poor people), but they don't pay nearly as much.

I got no problem with what you're saying here. You're actually admitting that they've factored in this bias when they score countries. That's why the WHO isn't the best source of information in ranking countries health care systems - they've already determined that paying for your own health care is bad.

No they haven't. They have determined that "not everyone having insurance" is bad.

Snorri1234 wrote:Yes, and that health insurance cost problem directly influences the health care in some places. Countless people in the US don't go to the hospital or untill it's almost too late because they can't afford it. That's bad no matter how you twist it.

I'll repeat this since it doesn't seem to be sinking in - it's against the law to deny someone medical care in the U.S. It's not the fault of the hospital if people don't come in to receive help. The best way to bring down costs is to have people pay for their own health care. I've been reading on this because of our argument here and found that Europeans are trying to move more towards consumer cost spending. Oh yeah, and so is Japan.

No actually, the best way to bring down costs is going to national insurance in one go. That's the cheapest form of insurance. How the hell could people paying for their own surgeries be better at bringing down costs?

The best way to bring down costs, keeping the quality, is moving slowly towards universal healthcare. And making sure that that universal care also means people get everything, not be partly insured.

Snorri1234 wrote:They are bollocks because most people really don't experience them. They are a problem for some people, but at least they're not a denial of care.

It doesn't do anyone a bit of good if they are covered but have to wait so long that their health problem isn't treated. I also read up on this as well, the reason it's not as much of a problem in your country (The Netherlands), is because you are the most market-oriented system besides Switzerland. You guys especially introduced even more competition starting in 2006. You can't really say you're a govt-run health care country.

We're a little of both, something which always seems the best option suprisingly.
The government ensures that insurance-companies can't discriminate clients or not pay out, and they pay about half the prices. And the insurance companies market it. They can't charge "risky patients" more than others, so everyone gets insured and it works because that is how insurance is supposed to work.
The government makes certain rules, and the companies have to follow them

We have a high insurance problem - not a health care denial problem.

Exactly. The insurance problem is there because the companies are too free in doing what they want.

Snorri1234 wrote:As opposed to "We have a great healthcare system! Just don't expect to see a doctor if you're poor!"?

It's against the law to deny someone treatment in the U.S. Nobody is preventing poor people from seeing a doctor. Many doctors will work out a payment schedule that is interest free until the bill is paid off.

Word. Problem is that poor people (and illegals) also ask healthcare then, and since they can't afford it it falls as a burden on the actual insurancepayers. The problem of not having universal coverage is the reason why the US pays so much more money on healthcare.

Correctomundo!! The waiting lists are a problem because THE SYSTEM is too small to deal with the high demand for some things. Whereas, when there's a for-profit system in place the demand is met in a more sufficient way.

Yes and the for-profit system does that now by basically making sure there is less demand.

Snorri1234 wrote:Ah, selective reading ftw? I know I want to change the law, but I am actually also asking for a good reason not to do it. When there is no good reason to keep a law, why keep it?

In your mind, no matter what reason is given it will never be a "good" reason. "Good" reasons are only given by liberals. Everyone else's opinions are beneath you guys.

Bullshit.

Snorri1234 wrote:(Gay gene arguments are stupid btw, it's still not a choice to fall in love with guys and be bullied in school and discriminated against in the rest of your life. To ask for evidence of a gene shows a terrible lack of understanding of both genetics and plain common sense.)

Oh, it's not a choice! After lecturing us that "they're born that way" I provided you with a link from a homosexual organization in which they themselves say it's a choice and you just totally blow by it.

You missed their point, besides I don't know any gay person who has said it's a choice. Why would they? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Asking for evidence of a gene shows a great understanding of this issue.

No it doesn't. Asking for evidence when we know so little about the issue is silly. We barely know what most genes do, especially when we're talking about such complex things as behaviour. It shows you don't know the first thing about genetics.

You guys are just angry when someone asks you for proof and you can't provide it. You want to live in this fantasy world that you've created. When you can provide us with the scientific evidence then you'll have a case. But you'll never have it unless it's made up by a bunch of biased liberals which interpret the data the way they want.

It is true we haven't found a "gay" gene, probably because there is not 1 gene but multiple affecting sexuality.

And we are talking about behaviour! I don't think we've found a "like to read books a lot-gene" either, but that doesn't mean it isn't genetical. Genetics are complicated, next thing I know you're asking me to provide a gene for some disease that we haven't found but which we know is genetical since it seems to be heriditary.

Again bradley, I'm not advocating the system britain uses for example. I am saying that your system is equally bad because it fucks people over. The hospitals and the care themselves are fine and fluffy (unless it's a major hospital in chicago with not enough goods to provide for the huge demand), but the health-insurance problem you're talking about is exactly the reason why a little more nationalization works.

The thing is that everyone needs healthcare in their life. This is not car-insurance where poor people don't need it as they don't have a car, or where the insurance-price is determinable by looking at the value of the car. You can't choose to not have insurance because you know you won't need it, so it's different from all other insurance.

The way it works over here is that people all have to get insurance, and that insurance companies all have to take everyone in applying for it. Insurance-companies can't deny coverage so they have to find another way to make profit. This is where it works, as they make deals with hospitals and doctors and actually advocate prevantative care like any other insurer. The free-market force only kicks in after everybody has coverage at least.

To badly misquote a famous Roman Emperor, all of healthcare is divided into parts and each part must be conquered seperately. The notion that all of this can be covered under "insurance" is an insult to insurance.

Emergency medical assistance. This really should be a no brainer. This really should be seperate from any consideration of general medicine. Anyone who needs a triple bypass operation should get one and as soon as is technically possible. General tax payer dollars should be used here. Facilities should be designed to be as practical and efficient as possible. General and specific facilities should be available.

General medial coverage, health, dental, vision, falls under what we traditionally consider health insurance and needs to be addressed somehow.

Finally there is "health ensurance." The government has a duty to ensure that its citizens are as fit as possible. (After all fit people are productive people.) Unhealthy avoidance programs, healthy encouragement programs, and even things as general check ups are to some extent within the government to encourage if not always actively pay for.

Combining the three will always lead to trouble. If people are dying waiting for triple bypasses because they are on the same queue as the liposuction patients something is terribly wrong. If people are dying becuase they don't have the right "job" or income status something is terribly wrong.

You guys are ignoring the real question. If we know what is wrong...... How come nobody fixes it? I'm willing to bet it has something to do with who writes the laws and runs the hospitals? Who really cares whos system is better? If we know what is wrong............ how come nobody has fixed it?

Juan_Bottom wrote:You guys are ignoring the real question. If we know what is wrong...... How come nobody fixes it? I'm willing to bet it has something to do with who writes the laws and runs the hospitals? Who really cares whos system is better? If we know what is wrong............ how come nobody has fixed it?

... Because it's an issue spoken about quite loudly by politicians during campaigns... then forgetten once elected.

...

... Hello Nobunagger... how ... are you today? ...

Nobunaga wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:You guys are ignoring the real question. If we know what is wrong...... How come nobody fixes it? I'm willing to bet it has something to do with who writes the laws and runs the hospitals? Who really cares whos system is better? If we know what is wrong............ how come nobody has fixed it?

... Because it's an issue spoken about quite loudly by politicians during campaigns... then forgetten once elected....

No doubt. If looking at and listening to professional politicians didn't make me physically ill, I would keep track of all the campaign promises that they NEVER deliver on. This time around is no different.
These party-follower fools are clammoring for change and going cooky for the same con-artists time and time again. Laughable at the very least.

I won this thread btw.

Dancing Mustard wrote:... Hello Nobunagger... how ... are you today? ...

... What's shakin' Mustard?

...

silvanricky wrote:

That pretty much says it all.

Simple Questions:

What happens when you have too much water?

What happens when you have too little fat in your body?

What happens when too many deer survive each year in a single herd?

What happens is that in any example of extremism there is a loss. Extremism will always lead to destruction, even moderation, which at its extreme becomes indecision. Mr. Savage given his points still breeds a form of extreminism which is going to lead us to destruction. Intolerance is an extreme which will lead America to ruin. Extreme tolerance is an extreme which will lead America to ruin. Good intentions pave the way to hell.

This manifesto is. But i ask, what?

(Disclaimer: i wrote this while really tired and possibly dreaming so whatever.)

... bump

... I love Michael Savage.

Ah, one of them threads I won.

Snorri1234 wrote:Ah, one of them threads I won.

... Keep dreaming.

...

Having finally read through this thread, I have to say, yeah, Snorri won.

I would even win it more thoroughly now.

Refresh the forum, bro.

Nobunaga wrote:... bump

... I love Michael Savage.

I believe the man reads Plato's Republic just about every day....at least he says he does on the DVD I show every semester in Political Science.

Nobunaga wrote:E. Cause illegal aliens to build a wall between the United States and
Mexico, and then, repatriate them. Pay them a one-time worker fee.

Yes illegal aliens of the last 518 years should go home..
Caucasians should be sent straight to the antarctica - Europe is already overcrowded..
Large scale genetic testing can be performed so that only those of at least 1/4 native american descent are allowed to stay.
It´s a pity Oprah only is 8% native american or she could be the new president.. maybe make an exception just for her.

snufkin wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:E. Cause illegal aliens to build a wall between the United States and
Mexico, and then, repatriate them. Pay them a one-time worker fee.

Yes illegal aliens of the last 518 years should go home..
Caucasians should be sent straight to the antarctica - Europe is already overcrowded..
Large scale genetic testing can be performed so that only those of at least 1/4 native american descent are allowed to stay.
It´s a pity Oprah only is 8% native american or she could be the new president.. maybe make an exception just for her.

... I agree. Emphasized that word up there for clarity.

... I'm sure most of the "Live & Let Live", "They're only doing what Americans won't", crowd are pretty nice folks, but ignoring the rule of law for the sake of your good feelings is dangerous.

... Change the laws. I will argue against it and moan my dissatisfaction once it has become law, but my strongest argument, and the one that continues to prove most "Pro-Immigration" Americans as simple will have vanished.

... Congress won't take this on directly, as the majority of Americans are yet very much opposed to amnesty. They choose to ignore it (as has been done for decades). ... But with the current administration and congress, who knows? These guys are pretty bold.

...

luns101 wrote:I believe the man reads Plato's Republic just about every day....at least he says he does on the DVD I show every semester in Political Science.

Interesting. I read a passage or two from The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius every morning.