Jump to content

SiCKO


Recommended Posts

Whether or not you like Michael Moore, whether or not you agreed with him on 911 you need to watch this documentary. Most people in this country don't even know who Micheal Moore is, most have just listened to others who disagree with him demonizing his efforts. However this is a documentary, and has interviews with people outside of the country to see how social medicine really operates in other countries.

 

I ask you only to watch this film to make your own judgments. If you follow this link then it takes you to a free movie hosting site, if you have a fast enough connection then you don't have to download the film. However if your connection is too slow just click on "download" and when it has completely downloaded you can watch it.

 

This movie has been blocked from YouTube, and other hosting sites. It would seems that there are people that do not want you to know the truth!

 

Here is a Link to SiCKO:

 

http://stagevu.com/video/vkyegeumntmp

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Furious!

 

No problem, I have downloaded it, and will be burning copies to distribute to everyone I know. My father needs to see it, because he still gets his information from the traditional media! I keep hearing the same arguments over and over, and none of it is true. Waiting lines, death panels, care rationing, blah, blah, blah. All these lies, and even scaring seniors into speaking against health care reform. The truth will come out, and people will know they are being lied to.

 

I hope this video gives you all some enlightenment, it spans several countries that already have some form of social medicine already.

Edited by Furious1Auto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not you like Michael Moore, whether or not you agreed with him on 911 you need to watch this documentary. Most people in this country don't even know who Micheal Moore is, most have just listened to others who disagree with him demonizing his efforts. However this is a documentary, and has interviews with people outside of the country to see how social medicine really operates in other countries.

 

I ask you only to watch this film to make your own judgments. If you follow this link then it takes you to a free movie hosting site, if you have a fast enough connection then you don't have to download the film. However if your connection is too slow just click on "download" and when it has completely downloaded you can watch it.

 

This movie has been blocked from YouTube, and other hosting sites. It would seems that there are people that do not want you to know the truth!

 

Here is a Link to SiCKO:

 

http://stagevu.com/video/vkyegeumntmp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This could even be a better system, but it still does nothing to reform the health insurance industry. It will force doctors to take the hit rather then the insurance companies. Take a similar approach, and include the public option, and I think you will see some real changes in the cost of health care.

 

Here is a VIDEO LINK to the system that "Whole Foods" offers their employees.

Edited by Furious1Auto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could even be a better system, but it still does nothing to reform the health insurance industry. It will force doctors to take the hit rather then the insurance companies. Take a similar approach, and include the public option, and I think you will see some real changes in the cost of health care.

 

Here is a VIDEO LINK to the system that "Whole Foods" offers their employees.

 

I had to wait till the end of the link i put up, but there's a further 6 part 20/20 video from stossel on there. that's worth a watch too (if you hand't already seen it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to wait till the end of the link i put up, but there's a further 6 part 20/20 video from stossel on there. that's worth a watch too (if you hand't already seen it)

 

I think it is to divert attention off of the insurance industry, but I would agree to both as long as there is a public option to deal with the insurance companies also!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Canada it's simple you get sick, break an arm whatever......you go to the Doc, Hospital and in an hour or four you are fixed with NO cash coming out of your pocket.

 

I know that it's not really free (my taxes pay for it) but it's nice to know we don't leave anyone behind.

Line up with your critiques but the at the end of the day, I don't get billed for every bandage or Tylenol that I need.

 

 

And yes we have many tech shortcomings....but I can still access USA technology and my ""government" will pay for it. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Canada it's simple you get sick, break an arm whatever......you go to the Doc, Hospital and in an hour or four you are fixed with NO cash coming out of your pocket.

 

I know that it's not really free (my taxes pay for it) but it's nice to know we don't leave anyone behind.

Line up with your critiques but the at the end of the day, I don't get billed for every bandage or Tylenol that I need.

 

 

And yes we have many tech shortcomings....but I can still access USA technology and my ""government" will pay for it. :-)

 

 

Good to hear from a Canadian, it is harder to spread lies about what Canada offers when we now can speak over the internet. Thanks for the input bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are a US Ford employee, and get health care from Ford, why would you want to pay through higher taxes for coverage that will be inferior to what you are now getting? Many people in Canada do not realize how lousy our health care is because they have nothing to compare it with. Hundreds of deaths every year caused by unsanitary conditions in Canadian hospitals are covered up. There is no recourse because the government runs it. I am referring to the C-difficile virus, for one, in case anyone thinks I am making it up. Every person is different, but under collective socialized medicine, everyone is considered to be the same, and will have to take the same treatment mandated by the government. Many people in Canada have been wrongly diagnosed with and unnecessarily treated for cancer because they were tested by a blind government institution. If the government says you have cancer, then you have cancer. Health insurance is not a good system either, but government health care will become your worst nightmare coming true. What is needed is a competetitive system that will force providers to get costs down to what the individual can afford. The only reason why health care is so expensive is because it can. A heart transplant operation is no more technically difficult than an engine re-build. It should not cost more. The facilities already exist. The techniques are known. All that is needed is to follow the procedure. How can it cost a million dollars? It can because somebody else is paying for it, and only certain people are permitted into the operating room. They can charge whatever they want.

 

Government control of health care opens the door for much evil, as the government slides further into socialism/fascism/communism. Take your pick. This is not the direction that we should be going. We need to start tearing down government, not creating more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are a US Ford employee, and get health care from Ford, why would you want to pay through higher taxes for coverage that will be inferior to what you are now getting? Many people in Canada do not realize how lousy our health care is because they have nothing to compare it with. Hundreds of deaths every year caused by unsanitary conditions in Canadian hospitals are covered up. There is no recourse because the government runs it. I am referring to the C-difficile virus, for one, in case anyone thinks I am making it up. Every person is different, but under collective socialized medicine, everyone is considered to be the same, and will have to take the same treatment mandated by the government. Many people in Canada have been wrongly diagnosed with and unnecessarily treated for cancer because they were tested by a blind government institution. If the government says you have cancer, then you have cancer. Health insurance is not a good system either, but government health care will become your worst nightmare coming true. What is needed is a competetitive system that will force providers to get costs down to what the individual can afford. The only reason why health care is so expensive is because it can. A heart transplant operation is no more technically difficult than an engine re-build. It should not cost more. The facilities already exist. The techniques are known. All that is needed is to follow the procedure. How can it cost a million dollars? It can because somebody else is paying for it, and only certain people are permitted into the operating room. They can charge whatever they want.

 

Government control of health care opens the door for much evil, as the government slides further into socialism/fascism/communism. Take your pick. This is not the direction that we should be going. We need to start tearing down government, not creating more.

 

 

Sorry, I firmly disagree. Hundreds may die due to unsanitary conditions in Canada but THOUSANDS die here every year because of a lack of coverage. I understand that we get into the "Is health care a right?" debate here, I happen to land firmly on the side of it being so.

 

I haven't actually heard a Canadian sound off on their system as "evil" or "bad", nor have I heard anyone from the U.K. say so either. I HAVE heard our (FOX news, EIB network, etc......) media spoon feed us the story that it is, in fact, evil...... Who would I believe? Probably the ones who live it rather than those who have an interest in keeping it from happening.

 

No one says that we have to carbon copy the U.K. or Canada for our system either and from what I've seen, it is not.

 

As to the specter of "socialism, fascism, or communism" rearing it's ugly head, please stop. You know it and I know it, that the U.S. will not become George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

Edited by Indy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Health insurance is not a good system either, but government health care will become your worst nightmare coming true. What is needed is a competetitive system that will force providers to get costs down to what the individual can afford. The only reason why health care is so expensive is because it can. A heart transplant operation is no more technically difficult than an engine re-build. It should not cost more. The facilities already exist. The techniques are known. All that is needed is to follow the procedure. How can it cost a million dollars? It can because somebody else is paying for it, and only certain people are permitted into the operating room. They can charge whatever they want.

 

 

You don't think doctors in the U.S. misdiagnose patients Ha Ha. Almost any chronic pain is diagnosed as fibromyalgia and they define ordinary behaviors as conditions in order to supply people with their overpriced medicines to keep people sedated. As for a U.S. Ford worker having better coverage then what the government will offer, the proposal is for a government option. This means that people happy with their current private plan can keep it, and if it is better they will! However people on Care Source, and medicaid have better coverage with less cost per recipient then U.S. Ford workers do. What are the co-pays for a U.S. autoworker? That's right $25 per office visit, $50 urgent Care, $100.00 for emergency room. What is the cost to a medicaid patient? $0.00 Same care lower cost, you figure it out Trim.

Edited by Furious1Auto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think doctors in the U.S. misdiagnose patients Ha Ha. Almost any chronic pain is diagnosed as fibromyalgia and they define ordinary behaviors as conditions in order to supply people with their overpriced medicines to keep people sedated. As for a U.S. Ford worker having better coverage then what the government will offer, the proposal is for a government option. This means that people happy with their current private plan can keep it, and if it is better they will! However people on Care Source, and medicaid have better coverage with less cost per recipient then U.S. Ford workers do. What are the co-pays for a U.S. autoworker? That's right $25 per office visit, $50 urgent Care, $100.00 for emergency room. What is the cost to a medicaid patient? $0.00 Same care lower cost, you figure it out Trim.

 

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

How much do private insurance companies spend on overhead and profit?

Private insurance overhead and profit, on average, fluctuates between 12% and 14% nationally. This figure is somewhat lower than the 16-20% at many of the big insurers because it includes self-insured plans of many big employers that have overhead of about 6-7%. On the other hand, overhead in the individual market is often substantially higher than 20%, and in some cases above 30%.

The estimate that total administrative costs consume 31% of U.S. health spending is from research by Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2003. The figure would undoubtedly be higher today. Insurance overhead accounts for a minority of the overhead. Much more occurs in physicians’ offices, hospitals, and nursing homes - driven by our current fragmented payment system. The fact that insurance overhead per se accounts for a minority of the bureaucratic waste in the system explains why implementing a public option plan would not achieve most of the potential bureaucratic savings that can be realized through single payer. Even with a public option, hospitals, physicians and nursing homes would still have to maintain virtually all of their internal billing and cost tracking apparatus in order to fight with private insurers.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.[1][2][3] Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

 

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

 

Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?

 

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.

The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure up images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance where doctors and patients often have more clinical freedom than in the U.S., where bureaucrats attempt to direct care.

 

Won’t this result in rationing like in Canada?

 

The U.S. already rations care. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care, you get it; if you can’t, you don’t. The rationing that takes place in U.S. health care is unnecessary. A number of studies (notably a General Accounting Office report in 1991 and a Congressional Budget Office report in 1993) show that there is more than enough money in our health care system to serve everyone if it were spent wisely. Administrative costs are at 31% of U.S. health spending, far higher than in other countries’ systems. These inflated costs are due to our failure to have a publicly financed, universal health care system. We spend about twice as much per person as Canada or most European nations, and still deny health care to many in need. A national health program could save enough on administration to assure access to care for all Americans, without rationing.

Who will run the health care system?

There is a myth that with national health insurance the government will make the medical decisions. But in a publicly financed, universal health care system, medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the U.K. and Spain (or in U.S. systems like the VA) that have socialized medicine.

In a public system, the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by elected and appointed agencies that represent the public. This agency decides on the benefit package and negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology. Thus, the total budget for health care is set through a public, democratic process. But clinical decisions remain a private matter between doctor and patient.

 

Won’t this just be another bureaucracy?

 

The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. Because the U.S. does not have a unified system that serves everyone, and instead has thousands of different insurance plans, each with its own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, and rules and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented.

The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO. Provincial single-payer plans in Canada have an overhead of about 1%.

It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and who doesn’t when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save over $300 billion annually.

 

How will we keep drug prices under control?

 

When all patients are under one system, the payer wields a lot of clout. The VA gets a 40% discount on drugs because of its buying power. This “monopsony” buying power is the main reason why other countries’ drug prices are lower than ours. This also explains the drug industry’s staunch opposition to single-payer national health insurance.

Since we could finance a fairly good system, like the Norwegian, Danish or Swedish system, with the public money we are already spending (60% of health costs), why do we need to raise the additional 40% (from employers and individuals)?

There are three reasons why the U.S. health care system costs more than other systems throughout the world. One, we spend two to three times as much as they do on administration. Two, we have much more excess capacity of expensive technology than they do (more CT scanners, MRI scanners, and surgery suites). Three, we pay higher prices for services than they do.

There is no doubt that we do not need to spend more than we currently spend to cover comprehensive care for everyone. But the initial transition to a universal system would be very disruptive if we spent less. That is because we have a tremendous medical infrastructure, some of which would likely retain its excess capacity during the transition phase. Secondly, we would likely retain salaries for health professionals at their current levels. Thirdly, we would cover much more than most other countries do by including dental care, eye care, and prescriptions. And for these reasons we would need the extra 40% that we are already spending - but NOT more. We could cover all the uninsured and improve coverage for those who have skimpy coverage for the same amount we are currently spending!

 

Won’t this raise my taxes?

 

Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including police and teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of health care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 21% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less. For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

 

How much of the health care dollar is publicly financed?

 

Over sixty percent (60.5 percent) of health spending in the U.S. is funded by government. Official figures for 2005 peg government’s share of total health expenditure at 45.4 percent, but this excludes two items:

1. Tax subsidies for private insurance, which cost the federal treasury $188.6 billion in 2004. These predominantly benefit wealthy taxpayers.

2. Government purchases of private health insurance for public employees such as police officers and teachers. Government paid private insurers $120.2 billion for such coverage in 2005: 24.7 percent of the total spending by U.S. employers for private insurance.

So, government’s true share amounted to 9.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2005, 60.5 percent of total health spending, or $4,048 per capita (out of total expenditure of $6,697).

By contrast, government health spending in Canada and the U.K. was 6.9 percent and 7.2 percent of gross domestic product respectively (or $2,337 and $2,371 per capita). Government health spending per capita in the U.S. exceeds total (public plus private) per capita health spending in every country except Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg.

(Source: Himmelstein and Woolhandler, “Competition in a publicly funded healthcare system” BMJ 2007; 335:1126-1129 [1 December] and Woolhandler and Himmelstein, Health Affairs, 2002, 21(4), 88, “Paying for National Health Insurance - And Not Getting It.”)

Edited by nvsked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks nvsked, it may be a little too forward though, the best we can hope for at this point is a public option. There were misinformed people pushing back hard just with that after the fear that was put in them with accusations of death panels. You are also right health care is rationed now, and denials come from claims adjusters.

 

A Single payer system may be better, but there is a road to travel before we get there. At this point it is going to be a chore to get anything passed just to prove it's worth. At least once this system has been implemented it can be modified and expanded. The medical industry is spending billions in add campaigns to block any type of health care reform. People need to know the truth!

Edited by Furious1Auto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks nvsked, it may be a little too forward though, the best we can hope for at this point is a public option. There were misinformed people pushing back hard just with that after the fear that was put in them with accusations of death panels. You are also right health care is rationed now, and denials come from claims adjusters.

 

A Single payer system may be better, but there is a road to travel before we get there. At this point it is going to be a chore to get anything passed just to prove it's worth. At least once this system has been implemented it can be modified and expanded. The medical industry is spending billions in add campaigns to block any type of health care reform. People need to know the truth!

 

AGREE!.... but this information needs to be shared

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf...ouTestimony.pdf

 

Attempting to reconcile the dual imperatives of universal coverage and cost control through alternative methods. It is clear that cost controls mean that someone's ox gets gored, either the taxpayers, physicians and hospitals, or the private health insurance industry.

 

When some Congressional leaders declare that “single payer is off the table they are, in effect, saying that insurers will be protected, leaving the pain to

patients, taxpayers, and health care providers.

 

Let's examine each of these categories:

 

For the taxpayers, it is difficult to understand why we must endure an additional $1.5 trillion or more1 over the next decade in expenses at a time when our nation already spends 50% more per capita on health care than any other country in the world?

 

For physicians and hospitals, simply cutting reimbursements is counterproductive, especially at a time when we need to increase reimbursements for primary care and mental health services.

 

For the private insurance industry, they have dominated health care for the past fifty years, but it does not work. Despite a supposedly competitive marketplace, health care costs have skyrocketed, nearly 50 million are currently uninsured, and the quality of care for most Americans is “suboptimal”2. Choice is a total misnomer Americans want to be able to choose their doctor and hospital, not their health plans.

 

A humane health care system should reinforce the safety net in the face of our nation’s worst recession since the Great Depression, but our profit-driven system kicks millions of Americans in the gut and leaves them both jobless and uninsured. We have saddled our nation with an inefficient and exhorbitantly expensive health care system that drives jobs overseas where health benefit costs are low, and discourages entrepreneurs from striking out on their own for fear of losing their insurance coverage.

1 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/m...form-likely-15-

trillion/

2 http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhqr08/Key.htm

 

 

From the companies that brought the U.S. $750 Billion dollar bail outs (AIG) INSURER'S Humana, BCBS, United Health, HAP, Norton, M Care etc etc and the list goes on, and none of these companies provide health care. But they are for profit, regardless of their administrative cost!

Edited by nvsked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could even be a better system, but it still does nothing to reform the health insurance industry. It will force doctors to take the hit rather then the insurance companies. Take a similar approach, and include the public option, and I think you will see some real changes in the cost of health care.

 

Here is a VIDEO LINK to the system that "Whole Foods" offers their employees.

 

 

IF you want to reform the health care industry, we first have to stop insuring against the affordable. And that is what whole foods is doing. Catastrophic insurance for the big stuff and cash payments for the little stuff. If you get a 3rd party(govt or insurance) involved in the affordable stuff, you are only going to drive costs up. WHle foods and safe have adopted such a plan and they have held health costs flat for the last several years and employees generally seem to ike the plan.

 

Sicko is a pretty poor documentary as moore is good at telling one side of the story with a heavy slant.

Edited by jafo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF you want to reform the health care industry, we first have to stop insuring against the affordable. And that is what whole foods is doing. Catastrophic insurance for the big stuff and cash payments for the little stuff. If you get a 3rd party(govt or insurance) involved in the affordable stuff, you are only going to drive costs up.

 

Sicko is a pretty poor documentary as moore is good at telling one side of the story with a heavy slant.

Quote..."we first have to stop insuring against the affordable." Please define "the affordable"

 

So forget Michael Moore.... and look at real research. Then you can explain why insurance companies should be deciding treatment programs, and where I can be treated. After all, competition improves efficiency, I want to use the best hospitals but my insurer doesn't allow it.

 

Please list affordable conditions... Thanks

Edited by nvsked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote..."we first have to stop insuring against the affordable." Please define "the affordable"

 

So forget Michael Moore.... and look at real research. Then you can explain why insurance companies should be deciding treatment programs, and where I can be treated. After all, competition improves efficiency, I want to use the best hospitals but my insurer doesn't allow it.

 

Please list affordable conditions... Thanks

 

 

Remember most people or their employers are paying hundreds every month for the luxury of low copay. So the affordable would easily include any trip to the doc or specialist. Most trips the minor emergency clinics. Individual deductible should start at over $1000. This would keep premiums low and keep a 3rd party(govt or insurance) out of most health care transaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember most people or their employers are paying hundreds every month for the luxury of low copay. So the affordable would easily include any trip to the doc or specialist. Most trips the minor emergency clinics. Individual deductible should start at over $1000. This would keep premiums low and keep a 3rd party(govt or insurance) out of most health care transaction.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong here....just presenting another argument. Does the portion (listed in deductions on my check) under Medicare end? For a $1000.00 deductible, I'm money ahead.

 

And do we end all the money spent on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, space stations, savings and loan bail outs etc because count me in on that. But, if as a nation, we focus on a domestic agenda instead of saving the world, what will that do to our status as world police???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw on CNN this morning that our government already pays 46% of all health care costs....I'm on board for every American to be insured...somehow...someway...I don't have the answers...I hope our President can convince more of us to accept the responsibility to make affordable insurance available to all....I said I don't have the answers but...what do you think of our government taking over the hospitals...employees become gov't employees and all these catastrophic costs would be at the hospitals(gov't) expense...let the hospitals(gov't) deal with the insurance companies...no insurance...the hospital still takes care of you....All us working people would have to be taxed to pay for this, but at least everyone could get major care...I bet the insurance companies would have a hard time telling Uncle Sam that this isn't covered or that isn't covered...they(the gov't) could just take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw on CNN this morning that our government already pays 46% of all health care costs....I'm on board for every American to be insured...somehow...someway...I don't have the answers...I hope our President can convince more of us to accept the responsibility to make affordable insurance available to all....I said I don't have the answers but...what do you think of our government taking over the hospitals...employees become gov't employees and all these catastrophic costs would be at the hospitals(gov't) expense...let the hospitals(gov't) deal with the insurance companies...no insurance...the hospital still takes care of you....All us working people would have to be taxed to pay for this, but at least everyone could get major care...I bet the insurance companies would have a hard time telling Uncle Sam that this isn't covered or that isn't covered...they(the gov't) could just take it.

 

 

Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including police and teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance.

 

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you are wrong here....just presenting another argument. Does the portion (listed in deductions on my check) under Medicare end? For a $1000.00 deductible, I'm money ahead.

 

And do we end all the money spent on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, space stations, savings and loan bail outs etc because count me in on that. But, if as a nation, we focus on a domestic agenda instead of saving the world, what will that do to our status as world police???

 

But if we focus on a domestic agenda, this will also affect corporate welfare... and capitalism. A domestic agenda affects an oil company's abilities to do business in Iraq, it affects a company like Halibatron (capitalism) taking oil exploration, maintenance etc and selling it to the goverment.

 

Drug research subsidies affect the abilities of drug companies to make drugs off shore and sell them back to the American public. (profit/capitalism)

 

SO WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH DOMESTIC AGENDA'S....lobbyist etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF you want to reform the health care industry, we first have to stop insuring against the affordable. And that is what whole foods is doing. Catastrophic insurance for the big stuff and cash payments for the little stuff. If you get a 3rd party(govt or insurance) involved in the affordable stuff, you are only going to drive costs up. WHle foods and safe have adopted such a plan and they have held health costs flat for the last several years and employees generally seem to ike the plan.

 

Sicko is a pretty poor documentary as moore is good at telling one side of the story with a heavy slant.

 

I understand personal responsibility in shopping around to help control costs, however even the CEO of whole foods said it was a temporary fix, and that their costs are beginning to rise again.

 

I do however beg to differ on the effect of government intervention though, price capping and tort reform will bring costs down. Frivolous law suits also have to be dealt with to reduce the costs to physicians wanting to practice, there also needs to be grant money to alleviate schooling costs to new physicians!

 

Also the only ones that don't pay into fund our current health care are those who have elected not to, and most are healthy or they would not take the risk. Now if they all had to pay in the burden for the low income would be shared by all working Americans, and not just those wit insurance. If you currently are insured by your employer you premiums cover the costs of those low income who get services performed. Meaning the hospitals over charge your insurance company to cover the costs of the low income people. Providing a government option will mean that the 44 or 47M uninsured will also be contributing to cover the costs. Right now they pay nothing, and you/your employer pay the difference with higher premiums. What % of that 44 to 47M are healthy, odds are most of them or they would not take the risk in not buying it voluntarily.

Edited by Furious1Auto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...