You should already know, if you are in America, that the Health Care Legislation was just passed and America's Economy is doomed to collapse in 2015, with many problems along the way. Discuss your opinions, mine being obvious: We just fucked the World's Economy.

Explain.

As always, America will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the present, and when we finally get there, you'll thank everyone else.

Fucked the economy? How.

Loveless, please edit your opening post to include more information and properly develop the topic. Links to news articles, a short overview of the legislation, and an explanation of your own view would all be helpful. Otherwise, I may have to move/close this.

This whole debate for the last year, if not more, has been completely over the top and ridiculous.

Conservatives need to stop whining and get their radicals under control; they're making them look like idiots.

[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:44 am by DavidJCobb.

Massachusetts has had it for a little bit now, and the secretary of the treasury there says it is going to bankrupt the state.

[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:44 am by DavidJCobb.

This is entirely opinion based guys, there's no references here.

On a small scale, I am sure that a Government-controlled Health Care would be amazing. But let's face it, America is populated by a majority of greedy consumers and corrupted everywhere. Where there isn't corruption, there is negligence. Now, in theory, it sounds great! But this government run health care is going to completely rape some people and if you didn't know, there are a lot of problems with large scale Health Care systems like this. A good example is waiting lists for transplants and expensive scans in certain areas. Now, before, this could be solved by having a good health care plan or throwing money at the problem if it's serious enough. Now, this government run health care will most likely cause problems with this old method and make it so people who really need something are just going to get fucked.

If you don't know more than what you read on the internet, things like MRIs are hard to come across for most people and some people can be waiting for months to get an MRI while others could be waiting on a shorter list because of what kind of health care they had or if they paid a fee they could get it asap, this government-run will interfere and most likely force everybody to join the same list regardless of the issue or possible severity. One of my cousins ended up having a brain tumor and if he hadn't gotten the MRI his doctor suggested by getting the money to pay for the bill, he could have died by waiting on the list through normal channels of health coverage.

This will most likely also run the government's money dry, because I can see it now... Aderall is going to become much more common and things of the like, with everyone getting the same or "fit-to-your-budget" coverage. Doctors are just going to write you off on whatever on a whim, because what do they care, you will have to come to them from now on most likely.

Insurance companies contribute nothing to society. They have no physical function, no artistic vision, no responsibility, and most of all, no innovation what so ever; they're useless. The only innovation they ever had, was how to legally drop sick people off of their billing department.

Do not defend these insurance elites, or think they represent real capitalism, cause they don't.

(to the post right above)
I get what you're saying, and it's well thought out, especially with the adderall part (heh), but that's not how things would go down. That's how things are right now, even as we type to each other on this forum. America spends far more money than any other country in the world on it's healthcare, communist and sociailst countries included. There is something terribly wrong about that fact, and it's not because it's not true... It's because it is.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 23 2010, 2:44 pm by Loser_Musician.

However, they do provide services to individuals within the society. I agree that they largely abuse their purpose to extract more profits, but they wouldn't exist at all if they were completely useless. I happen to know someone who recieves millions from an insurance company for healthcare purposes, due to a neurological disorder I think. Government healthcare would be nice, if it works like it's supposed to, but I also don't think it'll solve the problem with insurance companies. We'll still have all kinds of other insurance to pay, car insurance, house insurance, renters insurance, ect ect ect.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 26 2010, 9:33 pm by CecilSunkure. Reason: Why you have so much severity ;P

http://img.freebase.com/api/trans/raw/wikipedia/images/en_id/12550149

There's your reference. America is not the only country on Earth.

Here in Québec, we have such a system implemented and I am really pleased about it.
The only inconvenient is, in fact, the -very- long waiting lists. :S
But with the 'PPC' (Public-Private Cooperation), I think this is going to get better. Riches will now be able to pay to by-pass the public's waiting list and this will reduce the amount of population needing operations in the public hospitals... This is the perfect world!

Yeah, I was wrong to say it like that. To say it so one hundred percent sounding. Insurance companies DO contribute to society. However, the contribution they make, is not innovation based, it is security based. And not only is it just security based, it's extremely inelastic as well.

An insurance company is just a firm that people give money to, so that when bad things happen, they'll get money back. That's all it is. That's so easy, even the government can do it, and more importantly, can do it better, because again, this is not an innovation issue, it's a trust issue.

Insurance companies are NOT based on real innovation. (the productive edge firms have over the government) Instead, they are based on security. (the productive edge the government has over the firms)

There is much more to be explained, but that is a very strong point right there. A point of which, a lot of people here already know, or at least, should know, assuming they've taken economics. But then again, that right there is the fault in and of itself, because we're talking about this issue on the economic level, instead of the moral level. A level of which is far more important.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 24 2010, 6:32 pm by Loser_Musician.

That's assuming just a bit too much. And if it required taking economics to know, then it is something not everybody would know.
I, for example, don't have a clue what you're talking about- and thus requesting further explanation why you thought so- because currently
I cannot see why 'security' can be bad, and that it provides service to people that can't pay for every mistake, accident, or disease they have.
I also cannot see that a catalyst in circulating money can be bad at all. I can only conclude that these kind of ideas, were probably at best,
your economics professor's opinion.

Furthermore, I don't see why trust issues can be bad. Every insurance is run by contract, and every contract under fair conditions are bound by law,
so it is, in fact, more than just a trust issue.

By security, I meant, just as you said; trust. I just tried a different word for it, that's all. Sometimes it's better to use different words for things, sometimes it's not. Poetry and articulation are awkward lovers.

Now as for the contracts, yes, that is true, contracts are bound by the law, however, insurance companies have found ways to get around that whole thing, such as saying that you yourself violated contract by not listing that you had a pre-existing condition. Now, you can get a law to protect against that, sure, but they will only find something new, because not only are they great at creating red tape, they're also great at dodging it as well.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 25 2010, 2:56 am by Loser_Musician.

Assuming what you were suggesting was getting rid of insurance companies, and nationalizing them- does that justify the means to get rid of insurance companies? Does that apply for every single insurance company and case every company ever had? I don't think so. Even if say, you weren't suggesting it. That doesn't make it so that insurance companies are innately bad. It happens that some companies are less than trustworthy over some. And frankly, this isn't just a problem just inside 'insurance'- it's everywhere. And no matter what you try to do in a capitalistic country, there's nothing you could do to keep people from seeking personal gains.
Don't even try to mention communism, because history already has proven that capitalism was, in the end, more efficient.

I'm not sure why this is such a bad thing. It's bound to happen, for every deal, every contract that is made- as long as it is under fair conditions. However, when such things like these happen, we always try to do what's best for our interests. And thus, we develop, and the society takes one step at a time towards perfection- what a long journey ahead. But truth be told, our world is very unfortunate to be not perfect. It will never truly be fair, nor just.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Mar 25 2010, 8:50 am by BeDazed.

What you said right there, I agree with one hundred percent. The only snippet I see different, is that healthcare can not be compared to 99% of other industries, because it is a necessity to live, a right if you will, and that's what this whole debate really comes down to. Should you have the right to a hospital when you are sick? That's the heart of the issue.

I'm a capitalist, I believe less government is best government, but I don't take that as a law, cause sometimes less is more.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 25 2010, 2:06 pm by Loser_Musician.

In the US, hospitals are required by law to give emergency care to the ill.

But more government is always more, and government never gives up the ground it takes. When this thing turns into Medicare and costs ten times as much as estimated, which will happen because benefits will always be expanding, it won't be axed. Cuts will only be temporary, if there are any.

That is correct, they are required to give Emergency care. Which can actually be, and a lot of times is, wasteful spending.

If it's a government job, let the government do it. If it's not, then let a company do it. It's that simple. But at the end of day, you're giving your money to someone, whether it be in taxes or in monthly bills.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 26 2010, 2:28 am by Loser_Musician.