Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Considering the effectiveness and efficiency of every other government agency, why in the world would anyone think the government could run health care more effectively and/or efficiently than the private sector?

    I defy anyone to name a single government run program that is also done in the private sector that private business does not do more effectively and efficiently.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

      Originally posted by EricOKC View Post
      Considering the effectiveness and efficiency of every other government agency, why in the world would anyone think the government could run health care more effectively and/or efficiently than the private sector?

      I defy anyone to name a single government run program that is also done in the private sector that private business does not do more effectively and efficiently.
      fucking over taxpayers?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

        Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
        All insurance companies do is move money around.
        If that is all you think they do, then you don't really understand the insurance business.
        Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
        That is all the 'government takeover' would remove (and by definition make simpler and thus more efficient).
        Really? So the government, which is not designed around efficiency or profit would some how manage to do something as an ancillary part of its functionality better than a company which exists solely to perform such a task? How do you figure that?
        Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
        The same people that treat you now would treat you then.
        You think so? You really think Dr. Smith, who spent 15 years of his life learning to specialize in orthopedics, for example, and is at the top of his field is now going to continue working in that field making exactly the same amount as the guy at the bottom of the field? Hm..I'm thinking, not so much.
        Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
        Your service would probably be better in fact, because nobody would have to find out what insurance you had, or how you would be paying, or whether they were indeed treating you at all.
        See above. Further, with market cost controls being eliminated, how do you figure service would be BETTER? When people get something for "free", they tend to use more of it. Note the difference in waiting times at a for-profit hospital ER and the wait times at a county-run hospital ER.
        Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
        Oh - and costs might well be lower when the millions of people who only get seen when something bad happens can get some preventative care (which is much much cheaper).
        Upon what do you base that? The idea that people who have previously blown off going to the doc are now going to magically start going? Did you manage to shove an extra 30 hours into every day? There's a reason a lot of people don't go for preventative care - especially in the lower income brackets. When you're working 2 hourly wage jobs, you don't exactly have the spare time to go get a checkup over every cough or sneeze.

        I'm not even going to get into the constitutional issues since you don't even seem to understand the basic economic issues.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

          Originally posted by thanatos144 View Post
          fucking over taxpayers?
          That isn't a government run program. Its just a by-product of the process.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

            Originally posted by thanatos144 View Post
            You want a comparison? Look how great a job Government does with the schools they run.......High cost that puts out stupid kids......Yep makes me want to put my medical life in their hands....
            Yes, all we have to do is look at the quality of your posts.

            You get no argument from me there.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

              Originally posted by EricOKC View Post
              Considering the effectiveness and efficiency of every other government agency, why in the world would anyone think the government could run health care more effectively and/or efficiently than the private sector?

              I defy anyone to name a single government run program that is also done in the private sector that private business does not do more effectively and efficiently.
              Medicare.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                To me it is a no-brainer. Yes there should be universal health care. Will there be downsides? Yes. Canada and other countries do have longer waiting times but the issue is this. Should people who need non-life saving procedures have to wait longer? To me they should. In our current capitalist system people with the most money go to the front of the line. Perhaps if you are one of those people you see no problem with this but I do.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                  Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
                  Medicare.
                  You want to take a moment to reconsider that? Medicare? More efficient than private sector insurance?

                  That would be funny if medicare weren't such a pathetic failure. For God's sakes man - its the last resort of ANYONE - people do not want to go on Medicare as their only choice. Those who can, avoid it and with good reason.


                  Medicare....jeez...

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                    Originally posted by EricOKC View Post
                    If that is all you think they do, then you don't really understand the insurance business.

                    Really? So the government, which is not designed around efficiency or profit would some how manage to do something as an ancillary part of its functionality better than a company which exists solely to perform such a task? How do you figure that?

                    You think so? You really think Dr. Smith, who spent 15 years of his life learning to specialize in orthopedics, for example, and is at the top of his field is now going to continue working in that field making exactly the same amount as the guy at the bottom of the field? Hm..I'm thinking, not so much.

                    See above. Further, with market cost controls being eliminated, how do you figure service would be BETTER? When people get something for "free", they tend to use more of it. Note the difference in waiting times at a for-profit hospital ER and the wait times at a county-run hospital ER.

                    Upon what do you base that? The idea that people who have previously blown off going to the doc are now going to magically start going? Did you manage to shove an extra 30 hours into every day? There's a reason a lot of people don't go for preventative care - especially in the lower income brackets. When you're working 2 hourly wage jobs, you don't exactly have the spare time to go get a checkup over every cough or sneeze.

                    I'm not even going to get into the constitutional issues since you don't even seem to understand the basic economic issues.
                    Ignoring the crux of your argument being "You don't understand", and quoting only parts of what I say, then replying to that...

                    It would defacto be more efficient, because it would be simpler. We would be removing a vast bureaucracy.

                    The same people would treat you. How they get paid re: performance isn't part of the question here. You seem to imply that insurance companies drive performance related pay in health professionals, but I've seen no evidence of it.

                    Yes - when people get something for free, they tend to use more of it. Hence people with (and doctors treating people with) gold plated insurance consume far more than is needed, because someone else is paying. But with a single payer, you can have global oversight on spending and waste. Rather than piecemeal - with the patient often being the last consideration.

                    It's a fact that the uninsured are far more likely to be without a recent doctor visit, and preventable illness makes up a huge % of healthcare costs. It's cheaper to treat someone early, rather than when they are forced to go to the ER. I've not seen anything that doesn't take this as being of the major benefits of getting everyone insured. The NEJM has a good article which includes this aspect.

                    As to the constitutionality of it. Well, many people crowed that the recent healthcare mashup wasn't. And they were proved wrong. It's amazing the number of constitutional scholars out there it seems. But if it was so obviously against the consistitution, then those on the right would have easily killed off the idea long ago, no?

                    Given the mantra that government can't do anything, and corporations are best at things, it's puzzling that more and more is getting spent, and the fundamental aim (that if you get sick, you get looked after) isn't getting any closer. You can say it would never work, but at the end of the day the US pays twice as much, gets a comparible level of care to the UK/Canada/Sweden/etc, and doesn't cover what, nearly 15% of the population?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                      Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
                      Ignoring the crux of your argument being "You don't understand", and quoting only parts of what I say, then replying to that...
                      I quoted your entire post.
                      Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
                      It would defacto be more efficient, because it would be simpler. We would be removing a vast bureaucracy.
                      No, you'd be layering one vast bureaucracy on top of another, or at best, replacing a bunch of small profit-driven companies with one large utterly unaccountable government agency.
                      Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
                      The same people would treat you. How they get paid re: performance isn't part of the question here.You seem to imply that insurance companies drive performance related pay in health professionals, but I've seen no evidence of it.
                      Then you're not paying attention. There's a reason Doctor X makes more than Doctor Y. Some people are simply better at their job than others.
                      Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
                      Yes - when people get something for free, they tend to use more of it. Hence people with (and doctors treating people with) gold plated insurance consume far more than is needed, because someone else is paying. But with a single payer, you can have global oversight on spending and waste. Rather than piecemeal - with the patient often being the last consideration.
                      So let me get this straight, instead of a smaller company which has the whole profit motive going for them when it comes to fraud and waste, you think a ginormous federal agency which doesn't have to care about profit at all, or even efficiency, is going to somehow be more attentive to waste? I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm also curious as to why you think the patient would not be the last consideration.
                      Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
                      It's a fact that the uninsured are far more likely to be without a recent doctor visit, and preventable illness makes up a huge % of healthcare costs. It's cheaper to treat someone early, rather than when they are forced to go to the ER. I've not seen anything that doesn't take this as being of the major benefits of getting everyone insured. The NEJM has a good article which includes this aspect.
                      And since those people STILL wont be able to afford it under the current plan, they'll simply obtain it when they need it and drop it when they're done - further driving up the costs for everyone else, and further reducing the availability of medical professionals to treat others.
                      Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
                      As to the constitutionality of it. Well, many people crowed that the recent healthcare mashup wasn't. And they were proved wrong. It's amazing the number of constitutional scholars out there it seems. But if it was so obviously against the consistitution, then those on the right would have easily killed off the idea long ago, no?
                      Uh - no. The efficient federal government has to go through a process to have a law declared unconstitutional. This process requires a lawsuit to be brought and make it to the Supreme Court. Getting to the Supreme Court takes time no matter what. The first case has yet to actually be heard by the Supreme Court, hence nobody has been proved wrong.

                      What's amazing is that you have so little understanding of this and yet think you know everything.
                      Originally posted by pappypappynut View Post
                      Given the mantra that government can't do anything, and corporations are best at things, it's puzzling that more and more is getting spent, and the fundamental aim (that if you get sick, you get looked after) isn't getting any closer. You can say it would never work, but at the end of the day the US pays twice as much, gets a comparible level of care to the UK/Canada/Sweden/etc, and doesn't cover what, nearly 15% of the population?
                      Our care is better than UK/Canada/Sweden in many ways - not the least of which is availability. Those three nations combined have less than 1/3rd the population of the United States incidentally. Do you know the average wait time for an MRI in the UK or Canada? Contrast that with the average wait time for an MRI in the US. (UK wait time is 18 months. US wait time is a LOT less than that. Same day in most major cities). Hell man, there are more MRI's in Houston than in the UK and Canada combined.

                      I'm really not concerned about 15% of the nation not having health insurance. Really - I couldn't care less. Most of that 15% is young and doesn't need it. Then you have illegals who I really don't give a fuck about. Even if it were 50%, it isnt like health insurance is something you have a right to. It is a business transaction for a product - nothing more.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                        Originally posted by Cletus View Post
                        To me it is a no-brainer. Yes there should be universal health care. Will there be downsides? Yes. Canada and other countries do have longer waiting times but the issue is this. Should people who need non-life saving procedures have to wait longer? To me they should. In our current capitalist system people with the most money go to the front of the line. Perhaps if you are one of those people you see no problem with this but I do.
                        But what will Canadians do when they can no longer come to the US and get good, private health care?

                        The way I see it you have three options.

                        1. Do it at the state level like Massachusetts and California. This is really the best option because it allows people who agree with you to move out and folks who don't agree with you to move in.
                        2. Pass an amendment to the Constitution to give that power to the federal government.
                        3. Move to Canada.

                        Because the ObamaCare option, passed by a slim majority, is clearly unconstitutional.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                          Originally posted by Damn Yankee View Post
                          But what will Canadians do when they can no longer come to the US and get good, private health care?

                          The way I see it you have three options.

                          1. Do it at the state level like Massachusetts and California. This is really the best option because it allows people who agree with you to move out and folks who don't agree with you to move in.
                          2. Pass an amendment to the Constitution to give that power to the federal government.
                          3. Move to Canada.

                          Because the ObamaCare option, passed by a slim majority, is clearly unconstitutional.
                          I was not aware you were on the S.C. Those guys have the final say on that issue.

                          Yet I do not like mandated health insurance. I want all private entities OUT of health insurance. Get those profits out, because we do not need that playing any role in the costs. This nation needs to join the civilized world when it comes to health care. We need to find our humanity and once again strive to do noble things, and the things that define the best of humanity. We have seen the worst side of humanity here for way too long. It is past the time to act like a civilized people instead of allowing the elites to be the only ones getting health care. Their lives are no more valuable, or has anymore value than a pauper's. Money should not be used as a measure to preserve human life. This is not what civilization is. Civilized societies work hard to make sure the lesser among us have just as much value on this basic level.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                            Originally posted by EricOKC View Post
                            Considering the effectiveness and efficiency of every other government agency, why in the world would anyone think the government could run health care more effectively and/or efficiently than the private sector?

                            I defy anyone to name a single government run program that is also done in the private sector that private business does not do more effectively and efficiently.
                            Health care...a.k.a Medicare

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                              I was not aware you were on the S.C. Those guys have the final say on that issue.
                              SCOTUS has never been wrong?

                              Perhaps you can explain how is ObamaCare Constitutional. Is there a section or amendment of the Constitution that I am unaware of?

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                                Originally posted by EricOKC View Post
                                I quoted your entire post.

                                No, you'd be layering one vast bureaucracy on top of another, or at best, replacing a bunch of small profit-driven companies with one large utterly unaccountable government agency.

                                Then you're not paying attention. There's a reason Doctor X makes more than Doctor Y. Some people are simply better at their job than others.

                                So let me get this straight, instead of a smaller company which has the whole profit motive going for them when it comes to fraud and waste, you think a ginormous federal agency which doesn't have to care about profit at all, or even efficiency, is going to somehow be more attentive to waste? I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion. I'm also curious as to why you think the patient would not be the last consideration.

                                And since those people STILL wont be able to afford it under the current plan, they'll simply obtain it when they need it and drop it when they're done - further driving up the costs for everyone else, and further reducing the availability of medical professionals to treat others.

                                Uh - no. The efficient federal government has to go through a process to have a law declared unconstitutional. This process requires a lawsuit to be brought and make it to the Supreme Court. Getting to the Supreme Court takes time no matter what. The first case has yet to actually be heard by the Supreme Court, hence nobody has been proved wrong.

                                What's amazing is that you have so little understanding of this and yet think you know everything.

                                Our care is better than UK/Canada/Sweden in many ways - not the least of which is availability. Those three nations combined have less than 1/3rd the population of the United States incidentally. Do you know the average wait time for an MRI in the UK or Canada? Contrast that with the average wait time for an MRI in the US. (UK wait time is 18 months. US wait time is a LOT less than that. Same day in most major cities). Hell man, there are more MRI's in Houston than in the UK and Canada combined.

                                I'm really not concerned about 15% of the nation not having health insurance. Really - I couldn't care less. Most of that 15% is young and doesn't need it. Then you have illegals who I really don't give a fuck about. Even if it were 50%, it isnt like health insurance is something you have a right to. It is a business transaction for a product - nothing more.
                                Thanks for being consistent and maintaining that people who disagree with you lack understanding. Class.

                                Government isn't unaccountable. We can make it as accountable as we like. Unlike corporations.

                                Yes, some people are better at their job than others. Insurance companies and a single payer system affects this not at all. You ignored what I actually said.

                                We weren't talking about waste. We were talking about use of resources when there is someone else paying. This is equally true for gold plated insurance.

                                You misunderstand. In a single payer system, they would not need to opt in or out. Everyone gets medical treatment when they need it. Hopefully sooner and thus cheaper. I'm also not sure how anyone does or should use medical help other than when they need it.

                                My point is simply that constitutionally it is not as clear cut as you claim.

                                The UK wait time for an MRI is 18 months? That is just nonsense. Cite or it's just made up. The NHS target is (from my reading) 6 weeks, and the vast majority of patients are seen in much less than that. Lack of staff is a far bigger issue than lack of machines. Again, cite for Houston MRIs please. I'd like to hear the argument that a city of 2 million people needs more MRIs than the ~100M people in the UK and Canada... And that ignores the fact that we could keep the system we have now, spend as much again on nothing but MRIs, and still only be spending as much as the US.

                                But it boils down to your last paragraph. Ignoring that fact that the young not taking insurance is half the reason for rocketing insurance prices, the fact is that I consider helping sick people to be a pretty basic requirement of a civil society. You may disagree, but that difference in viewpoint is what makes this discussion so heated on occasion I think. You may not care, but 25% of Texans are uninsured. And 9M children. Many would consider that to be a failed system.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X