|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-11-2007, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
but, you could also equate health ins to car ins, every one has to have that as well. but we all pay our own. the problem regarding health ins is that people don't have to have it, then they hold out their hand if they have an illness. i don't think most people realize how much of an effect one illness or injury can have on you. it can be catastrophic. but so many choose not to get it, and then find too late they needed it. my secretary chose not to get it, she's facing hefty bills as a result because she suffered a mild stroke. arkids here covers a lot of children not covered federally. we have systems to cover the needy. i think part of the problem is those who aren't really needy, but choose not to be covered.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln 
|
|
#2
10-11-2007, 10:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
No,I would not equate car insurance to health care insurance coverage.See,this is the problem(people don't separate a necessity from a minor luxury.)That's a big problem.We put all these things together...health insurance,car insurance,home owners insurance etc.etc....That's why we are so willing to accept the fact that people don't have health insurance..."They spent the money on something else." That makes it really easy to rationalize (and accept) that people don't have medical coverage.Americans are so competitive with others that they don't ever establish a definite idea about what necessities are needed by human beings.Cars(and car insurance) are not necessities for living.There are buses,and subways.If you live in the country,and couldn't get to work without a car,then what would you do? Get a job in another place.One which you could use public transportation to get to.Healthcare should not be thought of in the way you described it(one of many possible things you can spend your money on.) It's a necessity.It should be paid for in taxes like we pay for fire,police,military,and public education.Other countries know this.We are unique in having this idea that health coverage should be linked to personal wealth,or circumstance.I AM NOT talking about perfect medical care.I am talking about what you described(treatment for strokes,and other common treatable conditions) routine surgeries etc. Nurse practitioners can do the great majority of what we think doctors have to do.We have made the term "doctor" equivalent to a minor rock star,and it results in our healthcare dollars going to pay for the expensive toys doctors play with in their free time.The lawsuits got to go.We need a few good doctors(who want to do it because they enjoy it,)and a lot fewer lawyers.Too many people are trying to make huge money off of people's illnesses. That's why we have so many uninsured(we are spending the funds on expensive cars ETC. for DOCTORS AND LAWYERS.)If we stopped doing that,then everybody could be insured properly.
Last edited by SCUDSBROTHER : 10-11-2007 at 10:48 PM.
|
|
#3
10-12-2007, 05:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i don't pretend to know the answer on how to fix the problem. i know there is one, and the current way of doing things isn't working. but i don't think the answer is for the govt to take it over. with the rampant fraud and waste they already have in other programs, the beauracracy involved in every facet of govt, i just don't think that would be a solution-i think it would just be another bad way of handling something.
the problem begins with people failing to recognize that health ins is a must-have. but how do you force people to apply for the coverage offered at work? you can't. but then those same people find they need it, too late. then they have a mound of bills (that they wouldn't have had they gotten the offered insurance), and that they can't pay. so those of us who do have insurance pay higher premiums and our ins co's pay outrageous bills, and we pay the deductibles and copays, because we are also paying for all those who don't/won't/can't.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#4
10-12-2007, 10:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
1)fire protection 2)police 3)military 4)education 5)healthcare You can add energy(#6) to that,too.Countries who have it run by state run companies are getting much better services than the private energy companies here.They've just butchered the typical American(along with politicians like Bush helping them.)Energy is too important to allow C.E.O. S TO GET 400 MILIION A YEAR,AND companies pocketing 10 billion a quarter.That money should be going right into healthcare,education ,military etc. Enron raped California (with BUSH' help) back in 2001.You can't do worse than this monoploy.Private industry does a very poor job(just screws everybody as much as they can get away with) with the 6 things mentioned above.They are too important to have pigs at the trough ripping everybody off.That's exactly what oil and energy companies have done(rip Americans off.) The Government does a good job running the 4 (out of 6) things mentioned above.People complain about the public education system,but teachers can't make people value the education they are offering .They offer it,and if people don't make their kids learn,then don't blame the education system.If you want to blame somebody,then blame people making kids that are brothersbyanothermother.Public school teachers are not the problem.
|
|
#5
10-12-2007, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is a bit of a double edged sword in many sectors.
Private companies bottom line is profit, so they are willing to break rules and screw people if they can turn a profit. Even if it is short term in many cases. This does happen. But there are companies in business for the longterm that have provided innovation the government could not have possibly accomplished. And have made peoples lives better, especially in medicine. A huge % of new drugs to help all sorts of illnesses are discovered and produced in the US. A bit of government help is also involved. The government provides very little incentive for workers to actually do a good job though. The government does a horrible job at many things requiring vigiliance of others money and efficiency. There is no incentive for running a tight ship in many cases. But in some cases, especially local governments, police, fire, and other services are quite good because it is done locally and with pride. It is a complex problem that will always be debated. How much of a role does government need to play in providing various services to the people who the government represents. I would also argue on the whole the public school system does work in middle class to affluent areas. But in many urban and some rural areas, its very poor. And it is completely understandable. What teacher in their right mind wants to go into a war zone where parents put their kids on the bus so they can be done with them. And some rural areas might be dominated by people (usually older folks) who are unwilling to help fund public schools so they have to drag "teachers" off the streets because the pay is just above a Whataburger.
|
|
#6
10-12-2007, 10:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think the key is to ask yourself if something is a necessity for a country's citizens.If it is a necessity.then it's much cheaper for the Government to do it than the private sector.Look at the oil companies.They are charging the American People 10 billion a quarter(often) in profit. Even if the government kept gas prices high(to reduce consumption) it could use those billions for many necessary things(healthcare,education,etc.) the government workers(in the long run..with decent pensions etc. that private industry won't pay) cost more,but people aren't noticing that you cut out the business owners who isn't around to pocket billions.I am talking about necessary services and products.Not anything that could be considered optional....fire,police,military,education,healthc are,energy(oil etc./solar/agri-fuels.)
|
|
#7
10-12-2007, 10:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Diogenes is still lookin.......
|
Hybrid Mode
