Sport Bikes banner

61 - 74 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
bumblebee said:
Health care for soldiers is not socialized medicine...it is simply an employer providing benefits to it's 1.5 million employees and their dependants

Besides, even with the military, you are talking less than 10 million people...I don't think you realize what premiums would be for 275 million people...If you think there is a social security crisis looming...wait until socialized medicine hits your paycheck...
The "employer" is the US government, the employee doesn't have a premium to pay, and the dependents are covered without additional cost. Sorry, that ain't employer-subsidized health care.

But my question was, why is it (whatever you choose to call it) good for the military but not good for everyone? If socialized medicine is such an obviously shitty idea, why is it not a shitty idea for soldiers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,600 Posts
jim schmidt said:
The "employer" is the US government, the employee doesn't have a premium to pay, and the dependents are covered without additional cost. Sorry, that ain't employer-subsidized health care.

But my question was, why is it (whatever you choose to call it) good for the military but not good for everyone? If socialized medicine is such an obviously shitty idea, why is it not a shitty idea for soldiers?

I have 77 people on the payroll and the company pays for their healthcare...they do not pay premiums...and if they believe their spouse has better insurance and want to go there...I give them the money I would pay to our carrier for them...What is the difference between my people and the US Military?? and I do not have socialized medicine...The military has an HMO in the true sense, you go to Military facilities and are seen/treated by military employees...it is a closed system...

When are you going to answer my original question to you??? It is hard to get a good discussion going when you won't answer the tough questions...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
Refresh my memory?

And if you are really saying you pay 100% of employee and dependent health expenses, you are rare. About 15% of companies your size (not including ones that don't offer insurance at all) offer that (probably for thier HMO option.) That number goes down as company size goes up and, of course, does no good for employees who's employer offers no health plan or for people who are unemployed.

So, if its good enough for your employees and for the military, how come its shitty for everyone else? And if your company didn't pay it, how much would salaries rise to keep an equivalent expenditure? Lastly, how does your cost per enrollee compare with Tri-care, Medicare, or Medicaid?

These are actually the really tough questions.

http://webserver01.ces.census.gov/index.php/ces/1.00/cespapers?down_key=101737
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
None of the people arguing for a government run health care seem to know where all this funding will come from.Your not going to get the same paycheck amount and suddenly one day get free health care if the governement takes it over. It's gonna pound your wallet in taxes. It's also just another new way to distribute wealth from the rich to the poor. I believe that's really the whole point anyways. It's not "fair" that the rich have health care so we need to tax them more to pay for those who don't. I don't want the governemnt running healthcare. That's insane! What if Bush is replaced by another EVIL, CORRUPT, GASP.....republican? Oh dear!! Then you'll be really screwed if we had socialized health care. He would deny coverage to all democrats. That should be enough of a deterent for you. Not to mention the increase in taxes. Either way your paying for it. In the governements case though you don't get many choices and it's another bunch of red tape.

It should be just like car insurance. Competition keeps prices low and allows many choices. The self employed sector of health insurance is somewhat reasonable still. I can get coverage for just over $100 a month through a provider competing with many others. I had coverage from an employer and when I quit that job cobra would have cost me $365 a month.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
Given what's already in the government system (including federal, military, medicaid and medicare) and what businesses and individuals already pay, I'm guessing a single payer could cover most everyone for about the same as the aggregate spending now. All the other countries that do it spend less per-capita than the current total US nut.

In any event, there is nothing wrong with looking at alternatives. The last time the issue was on the table, annual plan cost increases declined by 75% for three years. When the idea was killed, annual increases quickly returned to double digits. Just discussing the idea will save business billions annually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,600 Posts
Here's an idea...would you enroll your children into an educational program with a 90 % failure rate? Would you take your bike to a mechanic who charges you twice what the estimate was and didn't fix your bike and created 3 more problems? My point is, the Congress has proven they are not capable of managing the tax money given to them and cannot oversee the programs they create...So you want to trust your health Care to these people...

Also...if socialized medicine becomes a reality, if you are misdiagnosed and even if you can prove it was incompetence or even deliberate malpractice...you will be stuck, because one of the first laws written will be to eliminate lawsuits...Have you ever tried to sue the Federal Government? Do you know anyone that has been successful??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
bumblebee said:
Here's an idea...would you enroll your children into an educational program with a 90 % failure rate? Would you take your bike to a mechanic who charges you twice what the estimate was and didn't fix your bike and created 3 more problems? My point is, the Congress has proven they are not capable of managing the tax money given to them and cannot oversee the programs they create...So you want to trust your health Care to these people...

Also...if socialized medicine becomes a reality, if you are misdiagnosed and even if you can prove it was incompetence or even deliberate malpractice...you will be stuck, because one of the first laws written will be to eliminate lawsuits...Have you ever tried to sue the Federal Government? Do you know anyone that has been successful??
But I don't think you'd be suing the government because the medical work is sent out to non-government hospitals. Socialized medicine doesn't make all the hospitals automatically government owned. You wouldn't sue the government, you'd sue the doctor or the hosital.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
bumblebee said:
...It is not a right...it is a luxury...
Why do poor people or people w/o insurance have the right to health care at no cost? Whereas people in this country legally, contributing to society daily, are not millionaires, pay out the absolute ass for it? I dun ghetit.... :drool

The people that qualify for free healthcare also visit doctors and ER's 10 times as much as a person that has to 'pay' for it. Sure I'd like to go to the ER for a headache, but I think I'll just get a good nap in and I'll be fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
ZeuSeason said:
The people that qualify for free healthcare also visit doctors and ER's 10 times as much as a person that has to 'pay' for it. Sure I'd like to go to the ER for a headache, but I think I'll just get a good nap in and I'll be fine.
There's very little truth to this and when people do go as many times as you state, it's not because there's a "free basket" and people are grabbing 9 more than they need.

Traditionally men only go to the doctors when something is wrong. Women, on the other hand, usually go regularly. So if a person visits the doctors "10 times as much" it could be a routine check up. I'd rather someone go in 10 times to get a clean bill of health (or catch something that could get out of hand later) than someone who visits once and finds out they need serious work done.

IMO, "socialized medicine" is going to be VERY expensive in its first run causing some people to say "I told you so". But the reality is that the majority of people don't make themselves sick in order to use free healthcare. Most people try not to get sick if they can because it eats into their time. Time they need to go to work, take care of the kids, etc...

After awhile, it won't cost a lot because of education, preventive measures, etc... The only question is, with the shape the country is currently in, can it afford to make it past the expensive hump? IMO, no.

We don't have enough money to do so. Does it mean we shouldn't do it? No, I think we should fix our problems then save up for that national healthcare warchest. It's like starting a business. If you don't have enough to make it through the rough first few years, then don't start. Wait until you have enough in the war chest to get into business.
 

·
Ride Naked
Joined
·
3,324 Posts
ZeuSeason said:
Why do poor people or people w/o insurance have the right to health care at no cost? Whereas people in this country legally, contributing to society daily, are not millionaires, pay out the absolute ass for it? I dun ghetit.... :drool

The people that qualify for free healthcare also visit doctors and ER's 10 times as much as a person that has to 'pay' for it. Sure I'd like to go to the ER for a headache, but I think I'll just get a good nap in and I'll be fine.

Don't forget... there is no FREE health care. They are sucking the money from us like leaches. So, not only can we barely afford our own, but we are footing their bill too. All these people mistakenly think it's free if it's from the government. The government doesn't have any of their own money to give, they only have OUR money. Start a new program and they will take MORE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
Actually, it is the current system that is sucking up your money, both in premiums and in dollars you'd pass on to future generations. There are great savings to be made in "end of life care" in those circumstances where it is actually prolonging an appropriate passage. Something like half of our health care dollar is spent keeping people alive past their time, and usually past the time when they'd choose to be kept alive if they could decide themselves.

Every guess about the cost of a single-payer system is a guess. What say we plan it, and if it is too expensive, we modify it or pass on it. Pretending we know is societally imbecilic. And remember, in the mean time we'll save 30% in health cost increases over a three-year planning period. There is no downside to developing a single-payer plan. Only several upsides, one of which is development of a good and implementable plan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
I'm all for developing a plan for study of such proposals to make an informed decision.

One of my biggest concerns in getting government further into healthcare is allowing government more private information and potential control over both your healthcare directly and moreso indirect control of personal habits through a denial of healthcare options for "unapproved" behavior.

Another concern centers around the more recent example of the Schiavo case. How much government and medical resources were expended in that case?

I think there could be huge benefits from a well-managed government health program, IF there were adequate consideration of privacy and individual healthcare decisions. However, if I had to ask myself if the current policy makers in Washington are showing the wisdom required, I'd have to say NO! The "War on Drugs" would be the first exception. Then it would be other "health-related" issues, risky personal habits, genetic "disorders", etc.

From a purely financial standpoint, a shared-risk plan would obviously cost some more money and some less money. This decision is the easy part if presented with accurate models, although there will always be those who want no part of contributing to goals other than their own. However, once we get the "law-and-order" and the "no Constitutional right to privacy" and the "cost-cutter" mentality of government involved in healthcare and the chemical content of your body, I think there are HUGE potential problems. Are these problems inherent to a government system? Nope! We are seeing private healthcare coverage beginning to do that already, with no Constutional protections because they are PRIVATE providers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
My biggest gripe is that my employer who should be looking out for it's employees is screwing us. For health coverage for me and my family I must hand out $6700 per year. There goes my dreams of a new bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
BusaDave said:
Another concern centers around the more recent example of the Schiavo case. How much government and medical resources were expended in that case?
I remember John Stewart responding after the whole congress meeting thing about society and how it views life, etc....

"Oh my god! Does that mean we're getting free healthcare?"

:lao
 
61 - 74 of 74 Posts
Top