because of a few flaws in the previous system, it had to be completely replaced immediately. Why couldn't they simply have modified the previous laws, which we had already worked the majority of huge flaws out of, to "ensure that at least 85% of money paid to an insurance company in terms of premiums is used to cover health costs of the insured"? There was no need for a complete redo of the system, it simply needed to be patched.
Well there's the fundamental difference of opinion. I don't consider that the previous system had "a few flaws" - it had (has) many problems, nor do I consider the new act to be a "complete replacement". IMO the new act
*IS* only a patch on the old, existing insurance system - all insurance is still going to be done through private companies, not a government option as was originally outlined.
Since we fundamentally disagree on these points, I don't think there's any point continueing this discussion because neither of us is going to change the other's opinion.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 4 2010, 7:24 am by Lanthanide.
None.
I'd like to state beforehand I am a Liberal. With that being said, I do agree and support the new Health Care bill, going along with Lathan said, republicans whipped up such a storm to sap and weaken the current bill its quite sad.
However, I do agree with falkoner on one point, mainly we should try to fix the old system before we go All-in into this system because there is no going out of this system (Unless states use the Opt-out option they are entitled to). However I thought before we even passed this health care bill we should greatly revise TORT REFORM. I'm suprised nobody brought this up especially when it comes to medical malpractice e.t.c and bloated out of control medical spending.
None.
This is entirely opinion based guys, there's no references here.
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.
Guess what? Poor people die all the time... Sucks to be them, doesn't it?
Enough said, perhaps?
None.
Yes, it is. You spend far more than every other country in the world, as presented on that graph, and yet get towards the bottom in terms of outcomes. Clearly your money is not being put to good use.
Did you not read what I said? Average life span includes deaths from non-medical causes such as gunshots or automobile accidents. That chart doesn't take into account factors that may affect life expectancy. If Americans come into contact with carcinogens at a higher rate than people of other national, they'll likely die earlier. For that chart to mean anything, it would have to mean that every other factor is equal. Obviously, they are not.
tits
Find me some proof that US's external life expectancy factors are significantly different than all other western countries in that graph, and you'll have an argument - I did a little bit of searching a while ago and from what I found the external factors were comparable.
Until you actually present proof that this is the case, all you're doing is claiming that the graph is irrelevant because you don't like what it says.
None.
You claimed the graph was relevant, the burden of evidence is on you. And saying "I did research a while ago" is not acceptable evidence.
tits
The graph is my evidence. You disagree with it, present your evidence.
None.
No, the graph is not evidence that all factors are equal. Try again, but with real evidence.
tits
No, the graph is not evidence that all factors are equal. Try again, but with real evidence.
The graph is evidence that there is a problem. All you have demonstrated (unless I've missed a post - correct me if I'm wrong) is a means by which it is
possible to invalidate the graph (finding evidence of external factors balancing it). Between you two, it is, however, currently the only evidence on the table, and it seems unreasonable to assume that any evidence is false until it has been proven that counter-evidence does not exist.
If I am to claim that the evidence we have for black holes is to be attributed to alien technology, the onus is on me to demonstrate that there is a reason to believe this, not on you to find proof that no such alien technology exists.
Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on May 7 2010, 9:23 pm by EzDay281.
None.
Thank you, EzDay, for providing some common sense.
Also I'd point out that there are two explanations for the graph:
1. America has similar health concerns to other developed nations, but they spend their money very inefficiently
2. America has far worse health concerns to other developed nations, so they have to spend so much more money to stay in the same league.
Now, given those two choices, what do you think is the more likely explanation that gives rise to this graph, especially considering that every other single developed country has a national health care system in place? If America did have substantially worse health to other first world nations, you would be seeing stories about how it was hugely worse than other countries, similar to the frequently seen stories about health outcomes in 3rd world countries (high infant, maternal and regular mortality rates).
Also, have a read of this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_StatesWhile it strives to be neutral and balanced, I think the overall tone is that the US system is inefficient. See particularly the section on cancer, where the numbers are not significantly different between the two countries, certainly not enough to account for the massive spike in the graph all by itself.
None.
Well, this just came to my mind... how are the USA doing with this whole thing?
Are people satisfied, finally? Or maybe it isn't even implemented yet?
None.
Well, this just came to my mind... how are the USA doing with this whole thing?
Are people satisfied, finally? Or maybe it isn't even implemented yet?
Most of the provisions don't come into effect for many years, and the US population at large has been whipped up by right-wing fanatics spreading dis-information to believe that everything the government runs falls to crap. Nevermind that reality that Medicare in the US has the lowest overhead costs (ie, very efficient) and highest approval rating out of all health plans available in the US.
None.
Nevermind that reality that Medicare in the US has the lowest overhead costs
highest approval rating out of all health plans available in the US.
This is blatantly false.
right-wing fanatics spreading dis-information
The pot calling the kettle black.
That website does present a convincing clarification, though it'd be further helpful if you happened to know where to find more actual data concerning the situation.
Quote from name:Azrael.Wrath
highest approval rating out of all health plans available in the US.
This is blatantly false.
Why would this be false? For example, in the above section it is true that the administrative cost in %total value is much less in medicare than private organizations, but the key is to recognize that the per-person cost gives a better idea of the situation as you/that website pointed out. The actual statement could still be valid, even if it is meant to support a position which it actually does not, you should clarify the situation rather than simply call it false.
Quote from name:Azrael.Wrath
right-wing fanatics spreading dis-information
The pot calling the kettle black.
Ad hominem. If you read the context of his sentence he presents a possible explanation to answer payne's question, whereas your use of a cliche intended to discredit his statement is unproductive. Perhaps you might explain how left wing fanatics spreading dis-information serves to blind people as to how effective government programs actually are.
None.
I don't care either way, I'm nonpartisan. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the statement. If that somehow offends you to the point you feel compelled to incite an argument about it, then that's your own problem to work through.
And no, there is no ad hominem involved. Throwing Latin into an argument only works if you use it correctly. I didn't discredit what he said based on anything personal about him. He made a derogatory and highly subjective statement, and I pointed out the similarity of his behavior to that which he was condoning.
I find it interesting you would say a statement about "right-wing fanatics conspiring to misinform the population" is productive, while a very concise post intending only to point out a few factual errors and an example of hypocrisy is "cliche and unproductive." It's quite a standard you've set.
Falkoner
