Why don't Americans have universal healthcare?

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 20 Sep 2007 04:49

Blue_turnip wrote:
Switch Kicker wrote:I think universal health care would be great. Really, it'd be just dandy. But I still don't see a big enough problem where I live to agree that universal health care is "needed."

IMO, there has to be some kind of population control.
It is dandy!

lol... I mixed Jim Gaffigan's voice and tone with what you just said, and it was hilarious.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 20 Sep 2007 09:19

Under Clinton Health Insurance Proof Would Be Required For Work

Associated Press | September 18, 2007
BETH FOUHY

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.

"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview â€” like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

Clinton unveiled her health care plan Monday in Iowa, promising to bring coverage to every American by building on the current employer-based system and using tax credits to make insurance more affordable.

She told the AP she relished a debate over health care with her political opponents, including Republicans "who understood that we had to reform health care before they started running for president."

On Tuesday, Clinton began airing a 30-second ad statewide in Iowa and New Hampshire promoting her new health care plan. The ad reminds viewers of her failed effort to pass universal health care in the early 1990s, trying to portray a thwarted enterprise as one of vision.

"She changed our thinking when she introduced universal health care to America," the ad's announcer says.

The ad also highlights her support as senator for an expanded Children's Health Insurance Program and for more affordable vaccines.

Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it. The mandatory aspect of her proposal, however, gets glossed over in the ad.

"Now she has a health care plan that lets you keep your coverage if you like it, provides affordable choices if you don't, and covers every American," the ad says.

The ad also continues her campaign's effort to appropriate the mantle of change away from rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards. The word change or its variations appears four times in the ad, which ends: "So, if you're ready for change, she's ready to lead."

Though her ads are airing in major markets in both states, they are appaearing with greater frequency in Iowa. Polls of voters in New Hampshire show her with a double digit lead over Obama and Edwards, but polls in Iowa show the three of them clustered together.

--------------------------

Notice how she relates the plan to mandatory childhood vaccinations (which people are starting to question).

Maybe our insurance card can store our vaccination history also.

If you dont take your government shots (poorly tested, and lawsuit-proof) you can be denied employment.

Further down the road, I can see where insurance and ID will be required to even purchase food.

That is,if there is even food available.

Perhaps an effective cure for America's obesity problem, would be to restrict our food supply to starvation-levels.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Sep 2007 09:29

How much of a problem is smallpox in the US these days?

Why don't people die of it any more?

Polio was estimated to infect 400,000 people in the world in 1980. How many people does it infect today? Why the sudden decline after being such a serious disease for thousands of years?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 20 Sep 2007 09:39

Smallpox is non-existent in the U.S. as far as I know.

Polio vaccine was developed decades ago.

-hds

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 20 Sep 2007 09:40

.............or maybe even 100 years ago.

-hds

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 20 Sep 2007 09:47

Yeah, smallpox has been wiped off the face of the planet (So says our government anyway.) when Russia and the US destroyed the last that they had in their possession during (or after) the Cold War. And there's been a small pox vaccination for a long, long time. Don't know how long, but it doesn't matter because there hasn't been a smallpox infection (to my knowledge) in anyone in decades and decades. Of course, the smallpox vaccination wore off those who did get it, but like I said, don't matter anymore.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Sep 2007 19:46

So which vaccines are you opposed to HDS?

You agree that some vaccinations worked very well, and saved hundreds of thousands of lives? Which ones that are used now should be questioned?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 25 Sep 2007 10:43

The vaccines that haven't been tested much should not be forced on the population.

Why pay for testing if you can force people to test them for you, for free?

How much did drug companies pay people to test their drugs in the past?

How much would you demand in payment, to volunteer yourself for an un-neccesary, experimental treatment (assuming there is a price you would accept for such a risk)?

What if the company could pay you nothing, and still have you be the guinea pig?

A good example is that new viral papiloma (sp?) vaccine that lobbyists bribed the Governor of Texas, to mandate for every young schoolgirl.

That incident perhaps shows that drug testing can be done for far cheaper, if you just bribe a politician to mandate that people take the drug.

From top to bottom, that mandated vaccine reeks of crooked politicians.

I am more skeptical of vaccines that have been invented in the past decade, because of legal protections the companies now have, to give you poison with no consequences.

more later.... battery running low....

-hds

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 25 Sep 2007 17:51

I presume that you're talking about the human papillomavirus vaccine, which was invented by an Australian. The testing in Australia, which is completely indepedent government funded testing (at the University of Queensland) found that the vaccine is approximately 100% effective, and if widely implemented would stop 70% of all cervical cancers. In the US alone 4000 women die of cervical cancer every year. Here is a vaccine that will save about 2800 lives every year, and will stop a further 4200 from having to battle cancer. At this stage there are reports that 7 people have died after taking the vaccine. Of course it would be false to assume that people died because they took the vaccine, at least some of those people may have died of other causes (since millions of people have been given the vaccine, the odds of a person coincidentally dying afterwards are quite high).

Even if the vaccine is the reason for the deaths, given a choice between 2800 people randomly dying each year, or 7, which would you choose?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 27 Sep 2007 10:57

Those numbers, which i'll assume are accurate, do not justify widespread, mandatory innoculations of millions of young schoolgirls.

You don't get that virus by having somebody sneeze on you.

Your 2 choices at the bottom are irrelevent to the logic of this argument.

The choice should be, whether you choose to allow your daughter to be given an un-neccessary innoculation.

Quick searching seems to turn up that the virus hardly causes cancer in the U.S. due to other treatments.

Primarily a sexually transmitted disease, often more severe given larger numbers of sex partners.

Do 8 and 10 year old girls really have so many sex partners?

Makes we wonder if the innoculations are there to cover up widespread abuse of girls. Its probably the male teacher/abusers who are the main transmitters. ????

-hds

BenRea · Post by **BenRea** » 27 Sep 2007 19:15

"Why don't Americans have universal healthcare?"

Because Doctors get paid too much.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 28 Sep 2007 07:41

BenRea wrote:"Why don't Americans have universal healthcare?"

Because Doctors get paid too much.

Psshh. Whatever. $71/hour is not too much... What are you talking about?

Seriously, what person, WHERE, NEEDS $71/hour? They're job can't be THAT freakin' hard. Plus they get benefits. The world's so fucked up.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 28 Sep 2007 08:38

Switch Kicker wrote:
BenRea wrote:BenRea wrote:
"Why don't Americans have universal healthcare?"

Because Doctors get paid too much.

Psshh. Whatever. $71/hour is not too much... What are you talking about?

Seriously, what person, WHERE, NEEDS $71/hour? They're job can't be THAT freakin' hard. Plus they get benefits. The world's so

It amazes me how you puppies can be so clueless.
Doctors do important and difficult work. Its very difficult and demanding to become a doctor, and this is partly because the process is designed to weed-out poor candidates because the work is so important and difficult.

When your appendix ruptures and you need an emergency appendectomy to save your life, and you must go under general anesthesia and be cut open, operated upon, and sewn shut again in working order, look your doctors in the eyes and tell them that they're not earning their pay, that they're not worth the expense.

Bob Riefer on this forum, a long time player and promoter of footbag, has a huge scar right down the middle of his chest from the heart surgery he had as a teen. He's alive today because doctors cut him open, operated on his still-beating heart, and sewed him back up still in working order. Tell him that he over-paid for his life.

Can either BenRae or Switch-Kicker look after my health? Protect my vision and hearing? The functioning of my muscles and bones? Save my life? I don't think so. So I think they're in no position at all to judge the worth of medical professionals.

Before I finish, I wanted to re-visit this little tid-bit:

Switch-K wrote:Seriously, what person, WHERE, NEEDS $71/hour? They're job can't be THAT freakin' hard. Plus they get benefits.

Massage Therapists charge between $60 and $80 bucks an hour, and all they do is rub your back or feet. Gimme a break. Relative to all the useless stuff people get paid too much to do, $71 an hour for your doctor is a bargain. Benefits? Some do, but many are self-employed. They pay for health insurance just like you and me. Also, in many cases doctors are told what to charge by the government: on top of that, insurance companies actually only pay a fraction of the cost of a doctor's time and work. When you get a bill for a hundred bucks that your insurance then pays, the doctor only gets pennies on the dollar. The doctor has spent countless hours learning his craft, and experiences all the pressure of operating on his very mortal patients, and a bunch of suits in Congress and Aetna Insurance Co. claim the lion's share of the money, passing on just scraps to the people who actually saves lives. Doctors are under-paid.

Anyway, if you still feel like doctors doing so great, getting too much money for the easy jobs they have, then why not stop bitching about it, do something useful with your wasted life, and get in on that racket by becoming one?

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 28 Sep 2007 10:58

Nah, I'd rather not spend 8 years of my life to get a Ph D, just so I can get smoked by a bus on my way out of the academy.

It doesn't matter if it's worth spending 80 bucks an hour to you. It's whether the doctor should really be charging you that much. That money could easily be put to much better use.

However my career goal is in the medical field as a respiratory therapist. Can't imagine it's going to be the most sanitary, or wonderful career choice, but that's what I want to be.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 28 Sep 2007 11:13

No edit button, ha ha. But I forgot something. This may just be badly worded, but I know, with much certainty, that I can save a life. I have extensive first aid training and know how to appropriately deal with a very wide variety of situations and injuries. Just don't like people assuming I'd be worthless in such a situation, when I know very well that I can take care of hurt people. I also know that when I'm helping that person, that it would absolutely absurd to charge them $80 for it.

First responders save more lives than any doctor in the world, and they don't get paid anywhere near as much as half as what most doctors get paid. But the fact is, most patients wouldn't make it to the doctor without first responders, and others with extensive first aid training. EMT's only make around $22/hour. That doesn't seem right.

A doctor may have more knowledge and training in the medical field than a first responder or EMT, but they're all doing the same thing. Saving a life, and according to your argument, that's where the high bill comes from... So, EMT's should be paid $80? If I come upon an accident and a guy has a pole through his left lung, and I save his life, I can charge him $80/hour?

Neither situation should cost someone $80/hour.

Wu_ · Post by **Wu_** » 28 Sep 2007 12:32

never heard of a doctor bill in the states that was 100 dollars .. what was it for? a question an answer? .. i have friends and family who have been smoked by doctors and hospitals for just small injuries nothing even close to life threatning, one day and night in the hospital .. those bills easily go up into 10k range .. and who says they only get 70 bucks an hour lol .. geez that would be great if they did. they make you pay insane amounts and if you don't have insurance to put the lid on it or atleast sink the cost a bit you will get swamped by bills with things on it you probably didn't even receive treatment for. this is not about a doctor saving lives that is complete other story.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 29 Sep 2007 12:09

No, now you're changing what you and I were discussing. That little tid-bit we had was about how much DOCTORS make, not the hospital, the doctors. The doctors only make 80 buck an hour, and that's high end. They get paid much much more for things like surgeries and what not. But basic daily checkups and what not, the doctor makes 80 bucks an hour. And they don't fuckin' deserve that much money, and they most certainly don't earn it either.

How much the hospital actually charges you is completely different, and also the main reason medical bills are so ridiculous.

I really don't see what you're getting at...

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 30 Sep 2007 05:46

HighDemonslayer wrote: Do 8 and 10 year old girls really have so many sex partners?

Makes we wonder if the innoculations are there to cover up widespread abuse of girls. Its probably the male teacher/abusers who are the main transmitters. ????
-hds

highdemonslayer wrote:
I am more skeptical of vaccines that have been invented in the past decade, because of legal protections the companies now have, to give you poison with no consequences.

Dear highdemonslayer,

Please grow a brain.

from Oliver.

Post by **Zac Miley** » 30 Sep 2007 07:21

Switch Kicker wrote:And they don't fuckin' deserve that much money, and they most certainly don't earn it either.

Doctors get paid so much because their schooling is so expensive. If a doctor got out of medical school and then became a doctor earning 20/hour (assuming you would want a doctor to earn the same as an EMT) They wouldn't be able to pay off their student loans and shiz.

The schooling:payment ratio is usually the same in most jobs.

But yeah. They're overpaid.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 30 Sep 2007 07:58

Isilwar wrote:
Switch Kicker wrote:And they don't fuckin' deserve that much money, and they most certainly don't earn it either.
Doctors get paid so much because their schooling is so expensive. If a doctor got out of medical school and then became a doctor earning 20/hour (assuming you would want a doctor to earn the same as an EMT) They wouldn't be able to pay off their student loans and shiz.

The schooling:payment ratio is usually the same in most jobs.

But yeah. They're overpaid.

No. Doctors are payed lots because its a hardcore job. Schooling costs alot for the same reason.

If anything, schooling is expensive because the job pays alot.