Clinton and Obama

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Burf

Well, Kolle, I'm in the military, so they cover my health care.
I don't have a problem with a well thought out, universal health care option.
I do, however, have a problem with your justification that calling it "free" is ok.
You can call me greedy all you want, but the reality is that I am going to be paying more for a health care plan that I won't be using.

This is the thing, you are already paying for it.

[Burf]

Originally Posted by chaos

This is the thing, you are already paying for it.

Yeah, with my SOUL!

[Kolle]

you seem to be thinking that your current health care service is free and that no one paid for it. isn't that the same as calling universal health care free? anyways, it's just a term because people get it for free. yes, someone else paid for it. but again, if you want to treat the concept of free in such a way then it's impossible for anything to be free and the word might as well not exist.

but even with the military the same thing applies as with a job. someone is footing the bill for the plan. that cost is ultimately passed on to service men and women anyways (and taxpayers). you can think of that in terms of pay, less quality of other provided services and products (such as food).

[Burf]

Actually, I'm hoping that they finally figure this health care thing out in time for me to get out of the service.
I know Grobbie's head would explode at the though that I'd want this to benefit me instead of for the good of all mankind(!), but....meh.

Honestly, though, I don't know why we even bother to debate it. It gets brought up every election. Although, with a Democratic Congress and Obama having a good shot at winning, who knows? Maybe this will finally be the year that all the poor and disenfranchised will get their giant handouts! wait...

[Fog]

Given our current system, it makes no sense not to support some kind of universal health care solution. It costs much more for everyone in the long run when people with no coverage forego preventative care for years, and we end up with an unhealthy society racking up emergency medical bills.

Unless you want hospitals to reject the sick and dying poor, then helping to support their health care is both ethical and a good financial decision.

Personally, I think that for-profit healthcare and insurance is a fundamentally suspicious way to go about things, but no matter your ideology, it's hard to sensibly oppose some level of universal care.

Originally Posted by chaos

My work pays for my insurance, it's shitty but it's basically free, so I would definitely be losing money under any taxes raised to support a universal health care scheme.

I don't understand how that follows. It still costs your employer to provide you that insurance package. If it were cheaper for them, wouldn't they have that extra money available to invest in the business or put toward your salary?

Originally Posted by Burf

Yeah, with my SOUL!

If you're in the military, aren't you currently paying for your health care with your taxes? I'd assume that is in the federal budget somewhere, right?

So it doesn't seem accurate to say that you'd be paying for a plan you aren't using. You are already using it.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Fog - we're also paying for his healthcare that we aren't using. Shoe on other foot, and all that.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Fog

I don't understand how that follows. It still costs your employer to provide you that insurance package. If it were cheaper for them, wouldn't they have that extra money available to invest in the business or put toward your salary?

Not necessarily. I know with my line of work, no they probably wouldn't pay more. As far as reinvesting in the business, I'm not sure how it directly benefits me to take away benefits and reinvest them into a company that I do not have a stake in beyond employment.

[Gryeyes]

Originally Posted by chaos

My work pays for my insurance, it's shitty but it's basically free,

Its basically free like universal health care would basically be free.

[Etoille]

Originally Posted by Fog

Personally, I think that for-profit healthcare and insurance is a fundamentally suspicious way to go about things, but no matter your ideology, it's hard to sensibly oppose some level of universal care.

Pretty hard to convince someone to go to school til theyre 30 and amass 100's of 1000's of dollars in student debt and to work 20 hour days in a nonprofit industry duder.

[Fog]

Originally Posted by Etoille

Pretty hard to convince someone to go to school til theyre 30 and amass 100's of 1000's of dollars in student debt and to work 20 hour days in a nonprofit industry duder.

"Nonprofit" doesn't mean that doctors don't get paid. It means that taxpayers shoulder the burden of paying them.

I just don't think that capitalism works out very well with most modes of health care, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies. What's the optimal mode of operation for a for-profit hospital? Basically, it's to have a maximum amount of sick people to tend to. Likewise, drug companies probably aren't very interested in preventing the problems that they make drugs to treat. In the real world, preventative health care, with periodic screening and examinations and good health habits, is by far the most effective and economic way of dealing with public health, but it's not (without a great deal of government intervention and regulation) in the best interest of health-care-related companies to promote it.

On the other end of the industry, if you're a health insurance company, you make the most money if you can sell insurance to as many people as possible and then avoid as many insurance claims as possible. That's visible every week, as new "outrages" pop up left and right about patients being fed silly excuses by insurance companies to deny them treatment. I don't fault the companies, though; I fault the system.

Anyway, I'm not in any sense knowledgeable about the topic, so I really don't want to argue about it.

[Etoille]

Originally Posted by Fog

"Nonprofit" doesn't mean that doctors don't get paid. It means that taxpayers shoulder the burden of paying them.

of course it doesnt. i work with nonprofits right now and have worked for them in the past.

but it definitely means that the salaries/take homes arent anything to write home about and as i said its going to be fairly hard to convince someone to go to school til theyre 30 and amass a ton of student debt and to work 80 hour work weeks til 35-40 or later at a nonprofit level salary.

theres already a critical healthcare shortage. this would add to the problem.

[Kolle]

universal healthcare does not mean doctors get paid poorly

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

Originally Posted by Etoille

of course it doesnt. i work with nonprofits right now and have worked for them in the past.

but it definitely means that the salaries/take homes arent anything to write home about and as i said its going to be fairly hard to convince someone to go to school til theyre 30 and amass a ton of student debt and to work 80 hour work weeks til 35-40 or later at a nonprofit level salary.

theres already a critical healthcare shortage. this would add to the problem.

You saw Sicko, right? Homeboy for NHS was driving an Audi, living in a million dollar home, with a bangin' Asian wife and flat screens on every floor.

Your greed is astounding - doctors used to practice medicine because they wanted to help. Now, it's a paycheck? Wow.

[chaos]

The cost of tuition is a serious consideration, but also another problem that I believe needs to be addressed. I know that on my salary, I could not afford to pay off student loans like that and maintain any kind of lifestyle, and I make a good deal of money.

[Soriak]

Don't doctors in the UK make somewhat around $200k/year? That's a pretty good salary, especially considering that they don't leave school with such a massive amount of debt.