Even illegal aliens are legally guaranteed to receive medical service in every state in the union so that argument is a wash.

I wish more socialists thought the way that you do. The problem with socialists, at least American socialists, is that they insist everyone must pay for their ideas. If Canada, or hell, even California, wants to socialize their healthcare system then let them. But it shouldn't be forced on anyone. If you have to use armed force to establish it then it must be wrong.

Why do you automatically assume that just because the government is running the system that the people will be "healthier, more educated, and able to make more of a contribution to the country"? The only thing the Federal government is good at is waging wars- real wars, not policies labeled wars. If just calling it a war meant that the Feds became competent at dealing with it we wouldn't still be spending insane amounts of cash on the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs".

We already cover MORE PEOPLE with comparable spending. Do some more math.

Wow. Sounds like the Republican party over here.
REAGANOMICS! IT WORKS!

The hell it does.

He cut taxes! He increased military spending!

Yeah, and he also raised those taxes when he saw he went to far, and actually STAYED OUT OF an armed conflict. REAGAN IS A MYTH.

Pajamas Media is as fair and balanced as Fox News.

Ok, then maybe you'll listen to the KGB.

It was suggested as a starting point. How about the NEJM?
EDIT: Or perhaps something less technical and more contemporary from the US News and World Report?

Um no, sorry. As far as I know no government health care program currently does "we will assign you a primary care physician" (I could be wrong about this, in that I could see the VA doing it). Really the legal complications of government must assign make it unfeasable (to many due process headaches).



These are why people blow up federal buildings, not basis for a civil war. Oh and gun control is very much NOT on the table right now. Would loose the democrats way to many votes for something that is likely to get struck down by the courts.

They're already talking about reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban. The Dems have control of the House, the Senate & the Hill, they don't give one good damn about losing votes.

How about we make a compromise. We can have at least one modern, westernized nation with universal health care, and at least one modern, westernized nation without universal health care. The people who want UH can move to the former, and the ones who don't want it, move to the latter.

Since currently the US is the most freedom-loving of basically all modern, westernized nations (at least all larger than tiny, Pacific islands), with the weakest UH plan, the US should probably be the one to have the minimal or non-UH plan. Everyone who wants UH can have the rest of the world.

Heck, I'd even support a tax-payer-funded initiative to help move those people who want to move from non-UH US to UH rest-of-the-world. Give people the right to choose, right?

That seems like a fair and tolerant plan, if we all here can agree that tolerance of different political opinions is a good thing.

Yes, they do, and if you paid attention to what is actually happening in Congress you'd know that. The Democrats are a coalition, just like the Republicans and have already had bills defeated by the Blue Dogs and Centrists.

And on medical value, spend some time in these hospitals and clinics that provide care for the uninsured, or see how different the treatment is when you have a card or not, then tell me we "treat" anybody.

So.... this Russian is more believable than the other Russian?

If they show up at the ER, they have to be processed. Then they're billed. And the bills get pretty big.


Your choice of wording is "forced". You're not being "forced". They've just decided to use collected tax money that they've "forced" you to pay towards healthcare for everybody instead of towards something else. You're really not out anything more than you usually are.

And since this one actually applies to me,


Why do you automatically assume that the private system is any better? People who have money get better treatment already. Universal healthcare would mean that people who couldn't afford to go to a hospital or a doctor would be able to go to a doctor without taking a healthy chunk out of their monthly finances. People who can afford to go to a doctor already without it being a big hit to the wallet wouldn't see any difference one way or another.

*leans against the side of the thread, waiting for a mod to come around and shut it down...

Please, let the axe fall swiftly.

If I don't pay my taxes the government will damned well use force against me. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar I have to pay- whether it's well spent or not.

What part of raising taxes to pay for UH don't you understand?

By taking a huge chunk out of my monthly finances to pay for it. Oh, and of course these programs, after I pay for them, aren't available to me or my family and then you wonder why people like me are getting ready to take up arms over it?

Oddly enough I agree. No where near on topic at this point...

Adarael and Hobgoblin have a point. This is like talking to a wall. Let it die.

Hey, it's funny. I didn't like having a war "forced" on me and my tax burden. And you don't like healthcare "forced" on you and your tax burden. Gee, sounds like democracy is working just fine.

And I don't like you drunken numbskulls "forcing" me to pay higher car insurance rates.

Get over it. If you don't want to pay taxes for government programs that you don't agree with, spend your money lobbying congress to do something else with those tax dollars. Or vote for people who'll do it for you. Or move somewhere else.

The whole point of a democracy is going, "these are my beliefs," polling a few million people, and choosing the choices that more people want. The rest have to sit down and shut up and abide by the popular vote.

The US healthcare system works like this:

Public Healthcare

If you're over, I think it's 65 you qualify for medicare, which is health insurance for the elderly. Medicare get's a lien against your estate for anything they pay.

Medicaid comes in two parts. If you make less then I think it's $5000 a year and have no assets you qualify. Medicaid also covers nursing home care. To qualify you must have no assets. The law provides a 5 year lookback period. This means that if you gave assets away in the last five years you have to get them back somehow and spend them on nursing home care before medicaid will pay. This is a truly awful program as it requires the family to have no assets, even if one spouse is healthy and the other needs nursing home care.

For children who's families are poor but do not qualify for Medicaid their is the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This does not insure all children, simply children who's families make under X amount. Bush vetoed two attempts to expand this program stating that it was the first step towards nationalized health care (a poll at the time showed 30% of American's thought this to be true, half of that 30% indicated on a follow up question that they though this was a good thing).

If you're in the military you have health benefits including military hospitals and doctors, after you leave the service you may have residual benefits under the Veterans Administration which (incompetently) runs it's own system of hospitals. Federal government employees have a very good, federally sponsored, employees plan.


Private Healthcare
Everyone else is on their own for Healthcare.

Your employer may offer some kine of group plan. There is no set percentage of the costs of this plan that your employer must pick up. Some crappy jobs simply have a health benefit where you can buy into the companies group plan. Better employers will pay some percentage of the cost of the plan. If you loose your job, you may retain your coverage for up to 18 months, if you are able to pay the full premiums for the plan.

An employer sponsored plan falls under ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act). ERISA was written for retirement benefits and says that if a benefit isn't paid, the only thing a court an award is that benefit (for example if your retirement isn't paid you can get the amount owed by not punitive damages). The supreme court has extended this to employer sponsored health insurance, if your health insurer doesn't pay, you can go to court to make them pay but you can't get any extra damages if you die in the meantime. This can become a major issue if you need an organ transplant, to get on the transplant list you must be able to pay the $150,000 or so. (This may sound draconian but there are not enough organs to go around and that's literally the cost of harvesting and transporting many organs). That's how you get messes like this.

If you are self employed or otherwise not in a group plan you can by individual health insurance. Your premiums are rated on your individual health and not that of a group you are in. The good news is you are not under ERISA, the bad news is that you pay through the nose.

Pre Existing Conditions
Most private plans, will have some form of exception for pre-existing conditions. This is based off the principal in insurance law that you can not insure against a known loss. What this means is that if you have a chronic condition, for example diabetes, and loose coverage, you can't get coverage for that condition again. Most policies go on for pages and pages about what is and is not a preexisting condition (in general state regulation requires a condition to be covered if you had a policy in force that would cover that condition within the last 60 days). Some group plans for large companies have provisions requiring the insurer to cover preexisting conditions.

Comprehensive and Major Medical
Besides group and individual plans there are two main types of insurance:

The first is comprehensive coverage. This means that you go to the doctor and make a small copay as long as the condition is covered by your insurance and is not subject to an exclusion (for example many policies use to have "neck down" rule excluding any form a psychiatric or neurological condition, I believe that federal law now requires mental health coverage, not sure about brain cancer though). These can be very expensive. For example a pay $300 a month for full coverage for my healthy 4 year old son.

The second is high deductible, also called major medical coverage. This means that you pay a certain amount yourself and if you go over that in a year the insurance will kick in. The idea here is that you will only reach your deductible if something goes very wrong.

Policy Limits

Once insurance is paying it will cover costs up to your policy limit. This can be both an annual limit and a lifetime limit. Many cheaper policies have low lifetime limits and can become exhausted in the face of a major illness. This is why many American's are considered underinsured and go bankrupt even if they have health insurance.

Most American's have bad to horrible health coverage, if they have any at all. On the other hand group policies are so expensive, that for example GM spend more on health insurance then steel. Basically we're seeing a push for reform as a number of American companies are telling the government that they can't compete with countries where the government, not the employers, provide health coverage.

Request
After writing all this I'm really hot and bothered about American healthcare. If you found this helpful please forward it to your friends. Once you write all this down you realize just how nuts our system it.

I pay $650/month for a full coverage policy for my 4 year old and a major medical policy for my wife and me (my wife has a pre-existing blood pressure condition). You know what, please tax me and provide healthcare. I'm probably paying more for healthcare insurance right now then I'd pay in additional taxes if I lived in Europe. Plus I'd actually, you know be able to go to the doctor without worrying about what it'd do to the family budget.

No, you're guaranteed stabilization and transport. For example if you come in with a cancer causing you to vomit blood, you'll get some meds to stop the vomiting, but not any cancer treatment. (Actually if you're an illegal with a high cost of stabalization, many hospitals will privately return you to your country of origin). A hospital is only required to treat your immediate medical needs, not your long term conditions.

So.... what's the consensus? Does the Russian scholar play Shadowrun?

(Deft and unobtrusive attempt to return to the topic and end the circular spiraling out of control discussion, no?)

I do, don't worry.



If you can suggest a modern, westernized nation with such a situation, I'm listening. Otherwise, again, why don't you give a little to those people who don't agree with your leanings, and YOU move somewhere where they support that (or alternatively, offer a voluntary UH - only those people who wish to pay, pay, and only those who pay can enter the program. See how well that works then )



Which is EXACTLY why the US was not made to be a democracy, but rather, a representative republic. Because democracy is a great way for the rights of individuals to be raided for the "public good".

I'd be more interested to know if he plays Roulette.

the russian kind, or the las vegas kind?

http://www.johntitor.com/

You couldnt be more wrong.

Oh? Really? The feds ruled in November 2001 that chemo and dialysis no longer counted as emergency care. Google it, the care divide is widening.

The same feds that are going to take over the health care industry without limiting access to care? Surely you jest?

I'm done with this thread.

Different one actually.