ATTN: Americans (national health care)

[The Cleric]

Cleric, if you would educate yourself on the topic, you would be aware it's entirely possibly to have private, superior coverage, in a Canadian/Single Payer system, and yes, you get better coverage for it.

Better than what? Our current system? My personal health care? The proposed system? On the first and third, sure. On mine? I don't know, I have pretty good coverage and some pretty awesome doctors.

Better than the single-payer system's very, very basic coverage.

I don't know if we're on the same page here; I think I failed to fully read the sentence. The proposed bill is outlawing private insurance; but I think we'd both agree that that's rather foolish.

Elect people supported by different lobbyists then. It's not like it's hard to find out whose in whose pockets. The information on whose funding who is publicly available.

I'd love to. Snowballs chance in hell, unfortunately. And I did some research on the last elections, and tried to vote for the more upstanding individuals. They lost, almost to a person. Funding goes a long way to directing the herd instincts of the largest mass of stupid people.

Hence why I said vote for those who have lobbyists other than those in the pharma companies. Funding is always important. But you can always choose whose funding will be pulling them. You can whine or you can do something. If you want to be an unuseful whiner, of course, I can't stop you. I'll probably mock you, though.

It must be very nice in black and white land. You DO know how lobbyists work, right? And how it's not just "this person takes money from that person", that it's a fiendishly complex game of favors and palm greasing? And that if you get down into it, just about every lobbyist group has funneled money to almost every politician at some level?

I'll meet this challenge once you begin backing up your baseless assertions to the same scrutiny.

Sure, which ones?

Everything in the thread you've not put exact, quantifiable numbers to. But let's start with the training wheels on for you: Quantify the tax increase with the implementation of a Single Payer System. Put a dollar amount on it, to use your own words, per-capita and how many people will be using it and not a private insurer who covers more/offers better service.

Have fun.

I'll call an armistice on the numbers game, as it's late and I really don't feel like googling for several hours.
Can we at least agree that a single payer system would cost more than the current July 15th, 2007 health care system does?

My biggest problem is that I intensely dislike paying for public services that I do not benefit from. I don't (yet) use Social Security. Or Medicare. Nor do I plan on ever having to rely on them for anything. Why? Because I don't want to be a leech on anyone else. I gladly pay my taxes for roads, and police, and firefighters, and ambulances. Why? Because I either directly use, indirectly use, or allow the possibility that I will use their services. I feel no obligation to pay into a system for health care that I will most likely never use. I don't mind paying for my own, because that's completely voluntary. I can call tomorrow (Monday at least), and cancel that. I keep it, however, because I have so far been highly pleased with the service I have received. I pay for my own care through a voluntary wage garnishment. Involuntary payment in the form of taxes provokes a gut reaction of protest and general "unfairness".

[The Cleric]

Nit, what do you think about term limits for Congress?

[SirNitram]

I don't know if we're on the same page here; I think I failed to fully read the sentence. The proposed bill is outlawing private insurance; but I think we'd both agree that that's rather foolish.

All the references I've seen harken to the Canadian system, which is more sanely structured, and actually workable. It's a 'safety net', nothing more. Thus I have been arguing exclusively from that position.

It must be very nice in black and white land. You DO know how lobbyists work, right? And how it's not just "this person takes money from that person", that it's a fiendishly complex game of favors and palm greasing? And that if you get down into it, just about every lobbyist group has funneled money to almost every politician at some level?

It must be very pathetic to live in a world where every reform must be opposed because it'd be hard work, every improvement must be decried because it's tough.

I'm well aware of how politicians work. I'm well aware that you're hopelessly exaggeratting the situation, in an attempt to avoid the point.

I'll call an armistice on the numbers game, as it's late and I really don't feel like googling for several hours.
Can we at least agree that a single payer system would cost more than the current July 15th, 2007 health care system does?

If the assumption is no other reforms, period, ever, yes. There will be a moderate increase. It's less than you think, though, and I'll cover that in the lower reply.

My biggest problem is that I intensely dislike paying for public services that I do not benefit from. I don't (yet) use Social Security. Or Medicare. Nor do I plan on ever having to rely on them for anything. Why? Because I don't want to be a leech on anyone else. I gladly pay my taxes for roads, and police, and firefighters, and ambulances. Why? Because I either directly use, indirectly use, or allow the possibility that I will use their services. I feel no obligation to pay into a system for health care that I will most likely never use. I don't mind paying for my own, because that's completely voluntary. I can call tomorrow (Monday at least), and cancel that. I keep it, however, because I have so far been highly pleased with the service I have received. I pay for my own care through a voluntary wage garnishment. Involuntary payment in the form of taxes provokes a gut reaction of protest and general "unfairness".

There's a reason why 'Gut' arguments are dismissed and mocked, why Chertoff was decried for his 'Gut' feeling that America would be attacked this year, why Colbert mocks 'Gut' thinking over intellectual thinking.

But more than that, you fail to realize you are already paying the costs. When someone falls sick to an easily, cheaply preventable disease, the cost is passed on to you when they hit the ER without insurance. ER's can't turn away patients. The cost is thus passed on through everything else. And because it must be bad enough to suffer through the ER, it will always cost more than the preventative measures. In a very real sense, that's why the cost increase won't be that big. Hell, the cost is even passed on to you when bankruptcy has to be declared by insured, working Middle Class families who suffer an accident.

This also entirely neglects the costs that come from falling ill and being in the ER and dying early. In short, they cease to contribute anything to the economy and society in those moments.

Thus, all the single-payer system really does is shift the cost more towards prevention where possible. While 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' is not a literal mathematical equation, the general sentiment is correct.

Your argument that you don't 'use it' is also disingenuous. It presumes you will never fall on hard times, ever. That you will never be in the position of THEM, the great unwashed masses, which number 45 million.. And include a good chunk of the Middle Class.

And it is of course, the height of selfishness and sociopathy, but I'm generally sticking to the non-ethical side of this argument.

[SirNitram]

Nit, what do you think about term limits for Congress?

I'm against. Empirical analysis shows that those Congressmen and Senators who have the longest tenures have the most independence from lobbyists; they know where the levers are and can pull them by themselves. It's a nice thought that we could kill the Lobbyist infection this way, but runs into reality.

(I've actually wondered if the lobbyists started this little idea. Because the lobbyists do know how to navigate the mazes of D.C., and that's part of how damn powerful they are now. If no one was able to acheive independence through knowledge, by virtue of term limits, they'd have total control.)

I would, however, make it illegal for former Congressmen/Senators to become lobbyists. Their intimate knowledge of the levers of power is a good chunk of how they get powerful.

[The Cleric]

I don't know if we're on the same page here; I think I failed to fully read the sentence. The proposed bill is outlawing private insurance; but I think we'd both agree that that's rather foolish.

All the references I've seen harken to the Canadian system, which is more sanely structured, and actually workable. It's a 'safety net', nothing more. Thus I have been arguing exclusively from that position.

Gotcha, we're kinda on the same page there.

It must be very nice in black and white land. You DO know how lobbyists work, right? And how it's not just "this person takes money from that person", that it's a fiendishly complex game of favors and palm greasing? And that if you get down into it, just about every lobbyist group has funneled money to almost every politician at some level?

It must be very pathetic to live in a world where every reform must be opposed because it'd be hard work, every improvement must be decried because it's tough.

I'm well aware of how politicians work. I'm well aware that you're hopelessly exaggeratting the situation, in an attempt to avoid the point.

I don't know about you, but I don't have enough time in the day to be a political activist. I'll gladly cast my vote on the issue, but I don't have the time to be agressive about it.

I'll call an armistice on the numbers game, as it's late and I really don't feel like googling for several hours.
Can we at least agree that a single payer system would cost more than the current July 15th, 2007 health care system does?

If the assumption is no other reforms, period, ever, yes. There will be a moderate increase. It's less than you think, though, and I'll cover that in the lower reply.

I'll wait for that for rebuttal then.

My biggest problem is that I intensely dislike paying for public services that I do not benefit from. I don't (yet) use Social Security. Or Medicare. Nor do I plan on ever having to rely on them for anything. Why? Because I don't want to be a leech on anyone else. I gladly pay my taxes for roads, and police, and firefighters, and ambulances. Why? Because I either directly use, indirectly use, or allow the possibility that I will use their services. I feel no obligation to pay into a system for health care that I will most likely never use. I don't mind paying for my own, because that's completely voluntary. I can call tomorrow (Monday at least), and cancel that. I keep it, however, because I have so far been highly pleased with the service I have received. I pay for my own care through a voluntary wage garnishment. Involuntary payment in the form of taxes provokes a gut reaction of protest and general "unfairness".

There's a reason why 'Gut' arguments are dismissed and mocked, why Chertoff was decried for his 'Gut' feeling that America would be attacked this year, why Colbert mocks 'Gut' thinking over intellectual thinking.

But more than that, you fail to realize you are already paying the costs. When someone falls sick to an easily, cheaply preventable disease, the cost is passed on to you when they hit the ER without insurance. ER's can't turn away patients. The cost is thus passed on through everything else. And because it must be bad enough to suffer through the ER, it will always cost more than the preventative measures. In a very real sense, that's why the cost increase won't be that big. Hell, the cost is even passed on to you when bankruptcy has to be declared by insured, working Middle Class families who suffer an accident.

This also entirely neglects the costs that come from falling ill and being in the ER and dying early. In short, they cease to contribute anything to the economy and society in those moments.

Thus, all the single-payer system really does is shift the cost more towards prevention where possible. While 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' is not a literal mathematical equation, the general sentiment is correct.

Your argument that you don't 'use it' is also disingenuous. It presumes you will never fall on hard times, ever. That you will never be in the position of THEM, the great unwashed masses, which number 45 million.. And include a good chunk of the Middle Class.

And it is of course, the height of selfishness and sociopathy, but I'm generally sticking to the non-ethical side of this argument.

I don't like the fact I have to bear the cost of ER visits by the uninsured. Or the people who have huge medical bills either. I'm hugely selfish and elitist. What I would support is an extremely basic net for the easily preventable diseases. Something almost like clinics for medical students to intern at, or doctors to put in a few "charity hours" or something. Hell, make it a requirement for all hospital doctors to put in 5 hours a week or something. But I will not support having to pay out of my pocket for the unfortunate people who can't afford their medical costs. Call me what you will, but tough shit. I had an extended stay in the hospital. I paid my bills. All of them. So don't give me any shit about "never falling on hard times", I've been there and made it through alright.

[The Cleric]

Nit, what do you think about term limits for Congress?

I'm against. Empirical analysis shows that those Congressmen and Senators who have the longest tenures have the most independence from lobbyists; they know where the levers are and can pull them by themselves. It's a nice thought that we could kill the Lobbyist infection this way, but runs into reality.

(I've actually wondered if the lobbyists started this little idea. Because the lobbyists do know how to navigate the mazes of D.C., and that's part of how damn powerful they are now. If no one was able to acheive independence through knowledge, by virtue of term limits, they'd have total control.)

I would, however, make it illegal for former Congressmen/Senators to become lobbyists. Their intimate knowledge of the levers of power is a good chunk of how they get powerful.

See, I was thinking term limits as in one term. Wouldn't it reason that such a restriction would remove a large amount of the lobbyist field, as there would be NO pressure for re-election? Or how about we just outlaw lobbyist and shoot anyone we find?

[Cynical Cat]

One of the problems with term limits is that politicians, besides having the opportunity to be corrupted, also have the ability to learn while in office. Term limits pretty much guarantees that the people who will best know how to work the political system. . . . will be lobbyists. Considering the immense amount of money needed by even a neophyte politician to run is first election, it seems to be a solution that is worse than the problem.

Another factor driving up the costs of American healthcare, is the shear number of non-medical bureaucrats employed by government and the insurance companies. There are, among other things, whole armies of insurance bureaucrats whose job is essentially to figure out how to deny paying for nonprofitable clients. A single payer system will drop the numbers down to one comparable with other western countries and save a lot of money right there.

[Destructionator XV]

Boo fucking hoo. Next.

Go fuck yourself. Asking for a justification for entitlement is asking for an ethical argument. If you think it is ethical to let people die when you have the power to stop it with ease at no significant loss to yourself, you deserve to burn in hell for all eternity.

Because the US government is known for efficiency.

Medicare is between 2x and 7x more efficient than private insurance, depending on whose numbers you believe.

You know damn well that the system will quickly become seriously abused, as our wonderful public programs have in the past, and MY quality of care will drop.

Prove it. Everyone likes to bloviate about welfare, etc., being abused, but nobody can actually provide a solid argument to prove it.

I don't want shitty coverage at a less price

And what about the same or better coverage at a lower cost?

and I especially don't want to fund other people's health care.

What the fuck do you think your insurance premiums are doing now, dumbass?

[Destructionator XV]

Expensive medical care, Adam, is not an entitlement. Just because you enjoy being softhearted about the matter does not change this.

Why not?

If you REALLY believe that our government WON'T mandate procedures then you're no less then a fucking niave fool.

I've seen no evidence at all that they intend to. Medicaid and Medicare don't.

Government interference in this manner will only lead to problems with the doctors being bound by what they can and cannot do under this program and the patients, in the end, suffering for it.

Because that is what is happening in the rest of the world. Oh, wait.

And as a computer user, I'm appalled that you can sit there and question why profit and compitition drive innovation and cost conciousness.

I can live without a MEGA-OCTO-SLI-SYSTEM-OF-DEATG!!11111!1oneone11!!eleven

I can't live without medicine.

See the difference?

You usually have at least two big companies at each other to outdo the other, driving innovation and finding a newer, cheaper, faster way to do it. ATI and nVidia. Intel and AMD.

Name the companies in the medical field doing this, and show how they would cease to exist with the government paying the bills.

You say Canadians and others get to see their docs more then we do. This may be true, but look at the overall level of that healthcare.

I have been. Canada was ranked 30th in the world and the US 37th by a WHO study.

The US is the bottom of all the industrialized nations in the world.

You state that bueracracy won't impede the system. How can you say that?

Because I did the research into the actual facts instead of pulling unsubstantiated bullshit out my ass.

Here's the quality of health care you'll recieve. [...]

Yet people in Britain and Canada live longer than we do.

The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a
million people waiting to get into hospitals.[/quote]
How long do they actually wait? Why do these people want to get into hospitals?

According to the Fraser Institute,

Which is a right-wing think tank with a lot to gain by lying about public health care.

And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care first to people who need it first.

Flat out lie. Private competition exists in the UK. And interestingly, the UK, by your numbers, is in worse shape than Canada, which doesn't have it.

For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered?

If you actually read the bill I posted instead of just copy and paste these bullshit arguments, you would know the answer to this is "no" in most situations, but the bill does have allowances for special cases, if your doctor is convinced it is needed.

If you want these things and it won't be covered, you can get private insurance to cover it or pay the bill yourself.

The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear.

Which is normally scheduled a year in advance, being a regular checkup, so the waiting list is irrelevant.

Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

Prove it.

And while not knowing what insurance you're under, I also wish to know what reality it is that you seem to live in that you keep saying reality states otherwise.

Look at every other industrialized country on Earth, objectively, and you'll see the same things.

I'm tired of having to make post after post pointing out the problems with these systems

If you actually pointed out problems with some evidence to back them up, I'd be more willing to accept them.

and you keeping on burying your head deeper and deeper in the sand with the screams of "Nyaaaaah I can't hear you."

Answer my specific rebuttals instead of this huge block of text you keep posting.

Your sentimentality in the matter is touching but a bit niave.

Irrelevant.

I'm done pointing out the flaws, prove to me it will work so I can turn around and mark your posts with "Reality disagrees."

Ranking of quality of health care of countries in the world:
source
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

Every single one of them also costs less than our system. The facts speak for themselves.

[Cpl Kendall]

B4, did you get those stats on Canada from the Fraser Institute? Because if you did, I have to warn you that they are a far right wing think tank and their numbers should be taken with a large helping of salt. Better to get your numbers direct from Health Canada.

[Destructionator XV]

Check this out:

http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/health.asp
"In France, health insurance is a branch of the Social Security system. It is funded by workers’ salaries (60 percent of the fund), by indirect taxes on alcohol and tobacco [...]"

I love that idea. Not only does jacking up taxes on alcohol and tobacco help reduce their use, it also makes users of them - who are at higher risk of needing medical attention - pay more into the system.


H.R. 676, however, does not propose such a tax. If you are too lazy to read the link I provided in the OP of the bill's text, here is the section on funding overview:

Subtitle B--Funding
SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE USNHI PROGRAM.
(a) In General- The USNHI Program is to be funded as provided in subsection (c)(1).
(b) USNHI Trust Fund- There shall be established a USNHI Trust Fund in which funds provided under this section are deposited and from which expenditures under this Act are made.
(c) Funding-
(1) IN GENERAL- There are appropriated to the USNHI Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:
(A) Existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care.
(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.
(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.
(D) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.
(2) SYSTEM SAVINGS AS A SOURCE OF FINANCING- Funding otherwise required for the Program is reduced as a result of--
(A) vastly reducing paperwork; and
(B) requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications under section 205(a).
(3) ADDITIONAL ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO USNHI PROGRAM- Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.

[The Cleric]

Boo fucking hoo. Next.

Go fuck yourself. Asking for a justification for entitlement is asking for an ethical argument. If you think it is ethical to let people die when you have the power to stop it with ease at no significant loss to yourself, you deserve to burn in hell for all eternity.

That's awfully charitable Adam. And where does your "saving people" argument end? Do we pay for a 90 year old person on dialysis to have a kidney transplant? How about a habitual smoker getting a new lung? Or an alcoholic getting full medical treatment for severe liver damage? Are THOSE people "entitled" to their free full medical coverage that I have to shell out for? Who pays for treatments like that, under the proposed bill?

And no, Adam, I do not have a problem with letting people die. TOUGH SHIT.

Because the US government is known for efficiency.

Medicare is between 2x and 7x more efficient than private insurance, depending on whose numbers you believe.

Private insurance is voluntary. If I CHOOSE to spend into a system that is not as efficient, then that's MY problem. Don't try and tell me that you're going to force me into something for my own good.

You know damn well that the system will quickly become seriously abused, as our wonderful public programs have in the past, and MY quality of care will drop.

Prove it. Everyone likes to bloviate about welfare, etc., being abused, but nobody can actually provide a solid argument to prove it.

You're fucking joking right? The welfare system isn't being abused? There's not a [rofl] smiley big enough to express my mirth that that statement.

I don't want shitty coverage at a less price

And what about the same or better coverage at a lower cost?

Can I walk into the doctors office tomorrow an schedule a checkup for Thursday? No? Then pray tell, how is this "better coverage"?

and I especially don't want to fund other people's health care.

What the fuck do you think your insurance premiums are doing now, dumbass?

I'll put this is big letters so you can grasp my point.

I SIGNED UP FOR MY HEALTH INSURANCE. I PAY DIRECTLY FOR MY COVERAGE. IF I DEEM IT UNNECESSARY, I CAN CALL TOMORROW AND CANCEL IT. I do not want an involuntary system that I cannot opt out of if I am dissatisfied with the service I am receiving.

[Destructionator XV]

And where does your "saving people" argument end?

When it becomes impractical to do so.

Do we pay for a 90 year old person on dialysis to have a kidney transplant?

If we can afford it, yes.

Of course, the ideal solution to this would be giving human life extension research the funding it deserves, but until that materializes, we do the next best thing.

How about a habitual smoker getting a new lung?

If we can afford it, yes.

My ideal solution happens to be a ban on smoking, but until that happens, I'm willing to give him a second chance if we can.

Or an alcoholic getting full medical treatment for severe liver damage?

If we can afford it, yes.

My ideal solution happens to be a ban on drinking alcohol, but I'm willing to give him a second chance if we can.

Are THOSE people "entitled" to their free full medical coverage that I have to shell out for?

Should criminals have protection under the law? Should arsonists have fire fighters rescue their house if it burns down?

Yes, yes, and yes. You commit to it all, since the benefits to society as a whole make it worth it.

Tell me: do you think we should execute people for mistakes they make? That is in effect what you are proposing here.

Who pays for treatments like that, under the proposed bill?

The taxpayers.

Don't try and tell me that you're going to force me into something for my own good.

Why not? We force a great many things on people for their own good, and the good for society as a whole.

You're fucking joking right? The welfare system isn't being abused? There's not a [rofl] smiley big enough to express my mirth that that statement.

Prove it. Everyone likes to bloviate about welfare, etc., being abused, but nobody can actually provide a solid argument to prove it.

Don't make me repeat myself again. Either back your statement up with evidence or concede the point.

Can I walk into the doctors office tomorrow an schedule a checkup for Thursday? No? Then pray tell, how is this "better coverage"?

Britain, France, Germany, and Japan get you your appointment with a GP in under 48 hours 99% of the time.

And, of course, having a single payer isn't going to magically reduce the number of doctors in your area.

So, yes, you probably could.

I do not want an involuntary system that I cannot opt out of if I am dissatisfied with the service I am receiving.

So you think police protection should be opt out? Fire departments? Military protection? Education? Road maintenance?

In every one of these things, everyone makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of society. Medical coverage would be the same damn thing.

[The Cleric]

Adam, what do you pay annually in taxes?

[Destructionator XV]

Edit: That question is irrelevant.

[Cpl Kendall]

In Ottawa, Canada (the Capital) I can easily get a same day appointment by calling the doctor in the morning and asking for an afternoon apppointment. I get in that way 90% of the time. The rest of the time it's the next day. That's not bad at all.

[Comrade Tortoise]

It's funny how I manage to, at 20 years old, not living at home, without a college degree, manage to rent an apartment, pay all my bills, own a car AND a motorcycle, and carry full health insurance (medical/dental/vision) through my work. I just don't understand why everyone can't do that.

Because there are limited resources. Not everyone is lucky enough to be in the position you are in life. And you arent being entirely honest. you have two roommates which whom you share costs, neither car nor bike cost you THAT much, and the money was loaned, so that reduces the monthly up-front costs. You also have a job that is abnormal for your level of education and you work an obscene amount in order to manage what you do do.

Not everyone is so fit that they can be a personal trainer. Hell, when I graduate and go to grad school I will be lucky to make over 18k a year while working 12-16 hours a day. It will be a blessing if the university I am at offers benefits to grad students. last I checked, that was not standard.

Just because things are OK with you, does not mean that everyone else can be in the same boat. You dont have kids, you dont have a mortgage, you found a job that offers benefits, which a good number of jobs, even otherwise good ones, do not.

Those people constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of the population in those countries, but keep in mind that only about 15 percent of the population actually enters a hospital each year. Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care first to people who need it first.

That is a problem with the specific system rather than the idea of a government run system.

Additionally, do you have references for that?

Now, contrast to the 47 MILLION americans who cannot afford healthcare at all. The ones that never go to the doctor for preventative care. The ones that go for years wondering if the lump they feel is a cyst or cancer. Or who cannot afford medication that they need in order to live.

All that a system needs to do is put the procedure, and what it is classified as, in the hands of doctors. Let the physicians decide whether a system is elective or not. Then again, I take a standpoint on these things that optimizes patient care.

I don't like the fact I have to bear the cost of ER visits by the uninsured. Or the people who have huge medical bills either. I'm hugely selfish and elitist.

Not exactly a moral justification

What I would support is an extremely basic net for the easily preventable diseases. Something almost like clinics for medical students to intern at, or doctors to put in a few "charity hours" or something. Hell, make it a requirement for all hospital doctors to put in 5 hours a week or something.

Free clinics already exist for this sort of thing. But they are not widespread. And they dont deal with chronic problems.

But I will not support having to pay out of my pocket for the unfortunate people who can't afford their medical costs. Call me what you will, but tough shit. I had an extended stay in the hospital. I paid my bills. All of them. So don't give me any shit about "never falling on hard times", I've been there and made it through alright.

And not everyone has been in the same situations you have either. If someone is injured at work, or comes down with a chronic condition or any number of things, or is more 'inured' than you were, the situation changes and not everyone can make it out alright. Just because you can, does not have any bearing on whether or not someone else would. Take me for example. I couldn't manage it on what I, or my family makes for that matter.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Am I the only one who think this thread should belong in N&P instead of Testing?




By the way....

And you arent being entirely honest. you have two roommates which whom you share costs, neither car nor bike cost you THAT much, and the money was loaned, so that reduces the monthly up-front costs. You also have a job that is abnormal for your level of education and you work an obscene amount in order to manage what you do do.

How did you know?

[Destructionator XV]

Am I the only one who think this thread should belong in N&P instead of Testing?

Yeah, I think you're right. It has grown far beyond my original lobbying. Moved in there, and title made more descriptive.

[Comrade Tortoise]

How did you know? Shocked

Because I talk to him almost every day, and have for the past... oh... 3 years or so

[Ace Pace]

How did you know? Shocked

Because I talk to him almost every day, and have for the past... oh... 3 years or so

I think he missed that half this forum knows each other personally it seems.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This act is lunacy, because it demands far to much government and most importantly federal control over what should be a decentralized state operation. We are not a Unitary European Bureaucratic Country, and if we try to implement their laws, we will fail miserably in doing so.

Someone just go google Australia's national healthcare act, copy and paste it, and submit it with a modified header to the Senate as a Bill to the Senate. This stuff about making it illegal for private insurers to duplicate the national insurance is downright frightening, and totally senseless besides.

ED: Not like it even matters, anyway, as we're going to implement it just in time for peak oil to cause it to collapse.

[Destructionator XV]

ED: Not like it even matters, anyway, as we're going to implement it just in time for peak oil to cause it to collapse.

I'm not sure the oil situation will be huge on this. Of course, the general shitty state of the economy that seems likely to be coming isn't going to help, but medical care could probably still work, since in practice, I imagine most it will be based around local and telecommunications efforts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm not sure the oil situation will be huge on this. Of course, the general shitty state of the economy that seems likely to be coming isn't going to help, but medical care could probably still work, since in practice, I imagine most it will be based around local and telecommunications efforts.

Providing food to people and getting to their jobs is going to be hard enough for the government to successfully accomplish. The government simply won't have the money to provide healthcare, and other than anti-plague measures it will probably be nonexistent for all but the upper classes and those in urban areas, where it will still cost money. Semi-trained doctors may also provide some services for barter in rural areas on circuit. This should easily be the situation from 2025 - 2065 if not longer. Of course the large number of old and unhealthy people dying from a lack of proper care will help increase the overall efficient of society and aide in fully recovery, to be brutally frank.

But social security, welfare, socialised medicine, worker's comp, retirement benefits, etc, are all luxuries that come from economic surplus. As Peak Oil and the subsequent need for Global Warming Mitigation is liable to cause a 40% reduction in the GDP of many of the major industrialized nations for a period of 40 - 60 years, no such luxuries will be possible to offer to anyone.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Where are you getting your information Marina?