Obama loving douches, put yaw hands, in the air!

[vg4030]

It's not like you can do THAT much because you're a president. Not fucking things up entirely is good enough. Lack of huge decisions.. that's what most presidents do.

Thats true. but, these people are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. So, these things he does have power over

 

[Pittsey]

It's not like you can do THAT much because you're a president. Not fucking things up entirely is good enough. Lack of huge decisions.. that's what most presidents do. If you're not on the news all the time it means that you're doing good enough job or they haven't caught you doing your job poorly. That's good.
Healthcare plan was a controversial decision though because it's way too far from perfect and.. I don't live in America and I don't know how it now works in reality but from what I hear they say it used to be better. I haven't spoken to a person who would benefit from that though and most of us foreigners know that the healthcare system that he wanted simply doesn't work in most cases. Heck, there's a lot of countries trying to figure out how to abandon the public healthcare system because it turned out to be a money pit that with time comes to a place of no return and you have to sink tax money there.

However he's just a President - by definition, he's mostly the person who represents your country. It's not like he can change much. He changed stuff by becoming the US President in the first place. The fact that he's black is significant by itself too. His PR is close to perfect and he became one of the most influential polititians in the world - and that's what really matters in politics.

Public Health Care does work. The average age of death in the UK and France, where there is public health care, is higher than that in the US. There is also the option to choose private health care insurance, or to directly pay for private health care. But if you get cancer you get treatment. You don't need to sell your house.

 

[masta247]

That's in the UK and France, from what I know it also works well in Sweden, but in most countries it doesn't. You get cancer - you most probably die anyway if you can't afford to treat it in a private hospital. And you pay for public healthcare quite a lot anyway, even if you don't want to use it. The worst part is that you HAVE to pay. For example here you'd tranfer 5 kidneys for the money you paid for the public healthcare during your lifetime yet when you get seriously ill they won't treat you outright. They'll tell you that there's line for that and you have to wait 2 years - literally. Most people either pay for the treatment or die - and that 2 year waiting time takes that into account.
Now I realize that it's not like that in UK, France, Sweden and it probably won't be like that in the US but the fact that you're forced to pay quite a lot for it sucks, especially since private healthcare is usually better and wouldn't cost you more if you needed to use it - because every public healthcare system sinks huge amounts of public money.
Also, if you needed private insurance you could get one. With public healthcare in most countries you have to pay twice.

 

[Pittsey]

It's a fair tax and a useful tax. In a modern society everyone should be entitled to health care. Not just the rich. The system can work, and the UK's system has many, many flaws. But... It's fairer than a lack of treatment. Who wants to get cancer, and become homeless at the same time. Making the choice of keeping your home and dying, or fighting and losing your home is far from fair. I realise that is an extreme case, but a case none the less.

 

[masta247]

I think both options have their positives and negatives. I think if you need public healthcare you should be able to pay for it and have it. If you prefer private healthcare, that's your choice too - but if you want it you shouldn't have to pay for the public healthcare. If you don't want any kind of healthcare thinking that 10% of your millions/month is too much, because you can invest that cash in a better way and boost the economy while still being able to pay for your treatment when you need it (if you need it) then it should be okay too. Note that most people paying for public healthcare for their whole lives don't use up that money, and those who have to use it are not being treated like they deserve for all that money.

I realize that a public healthcare system wouldn't work if most people didn't pay, so imho an entirely private system with non-obligatory insurance is a better (though not perfect) solution after all. Though a fair public healthcare system would be good, most of the examples that I've seen have been far from perfect.

 

[Flipmo]

The fact that you're slapped with a hospital bill in the USA just for giving birth to a child is by far the dumbest thing ever imo. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know continuing the human race and replenishing the workforce cost money.

 

[S O F I]

And you pay for public healthcare quite a lot anyway, even if you don't want to use it. The worst part is that you HAVE to pay. For example here you'd tranfer 5 kidneys for the money you paid for the public healthcare during your lifetime yet when you get seriously ill they won't treat you outright.

As Chris Rock once put it, insurance is paid "in case shit happens". The only way to keep costs down is if everyone pays. There's overwhelming evidence to suggest that a public healthcare system is better than a private one but of course, it depends on how the systems work in each country. As you mentioned, it works in some countries well and in others not so well. That's not the fault of the system but of the government in how they administer it.

There's a fundamental problem with private healthcare. The problem is someone's health shouldn't be a matter of a company's profit and loss statement. That means my treatment shouldn't be judged based on whether it pays off for them to give it to me.

 

[S O F I]

I think both options have their positives and negatives. I think if you need public healthcare you should be able to pay for it and have it.

This is stupid to say. EVERYONE needs healthcare. But you can't have public healthcare unless the public pays for it. There has to be a mandate to keep it affordable.

If you prefer private healthcare, that's your choice too - but if you want it you shouldn't have to pay for the public healthcare. If you don't want any kind of healthcare thinking that 10% of your millions/month is too much, because you can invest that cash in a better way and boost the economy while still being able to pay for your treatment when you need it (if you need it) then it should be okay too.

The problem with that thinking is that it's a minority of people who are in that position. Most people, in the US, for example, can't afford to pay out of pocket. That goes for every country I'm pretty sure.

Note that most people paying for public healthcare for their whole lives don't use up that money, and those who have to use it are not being treated like they deserve for all that money.

That's the fundamental point of insurance. You pay not to worry and to be taken care of if need be.

Private healthcare would work just fine if the costs could be kept low. But that's not possible, especially in a country like the US where people have shitty health in general.

 

[dilla]

I don't care either way, but while I know a lot of Canadians that rag on the public healthcare system they have. Yeah, you get seen for free, but I know plenty of people that had family members with lung disorders (serious, not just a nagging cough) that had to wait seven months to be seen by a doctor. Two years for an MRI is what I was told was how long some had to wait to get one.

A lot of Canadians jump the border to see a US doctor and just pay outright.

 

[Ristol]

Have you guys ever heard of an Emergency Room? You go, they see you, they treat you, you go home, they bill you, you never pay. It's a wonderful system.

 

[masta247]

That's the fundamental point of insurance. You pay not to worry and to be taken care of if need be.

The point is that usually with public healthcare you still have to worry, because if something happens to you you'll most probably have to pay for them to take care of you anyway.
Well, public healthcare is good in theory, but it almost never works as it should. We might have one of those worse examples here in Poland but you can only count on it if you're relatively healthy. You can always see your doctor and waste his time with bullshit, but if you're ill, they will not treat you immediately unless your life is in danger 'here and now'. Cancer? Your problem, wait for 2 more years and fuck off. Because you don't pay them directly they will not hesitate to tell you that literally.
Also, you paid 20% of your salary every month for your healthcare but now you're over 80 years old and need a pacemaker ? Fuck you, you will not get it because you're too old and it's not worth "public spendings".
The government organization responsible for managing the system is one of our biggest debt creators. They have hundreds of people responsible for counting whether you're worth a certain surgery taking into account your age, other health issues and your life expectancy only. Bums aren't treated any different than people who are way more valuable.
In theory you can count to see a dentist but they will only fix your tooth if it's about frontal teeth, and will not treat you with an implant if you have any tooth remaining. Also, they use the cheapest materials that you wouldn't want in yourself and treat you like shit in the process, because you're being served "for free". If you want better materials you have to pay more than at a private clinic.

I know for a fact that it's not only like this here. I suppose that in America you guys might be used to great healthcare, because shitloads of cash go into that there. We use Canada as the prime example of what healthcare should look like too, and my aunt from UK was scared to get sick here but most countries with public health care suffer from the same issues (often worse). Private healthcare quality is almost always better. Public is almost always mismanaged and doesn't give a shit about people, because it's not paid for directly.

 

[S O F I]

the problem with what you're saying is the implicit assumption that everyone can afford care under a private plan. the answer is no, and the evidence is america.

 

[masta247]

People who can't afford it will have even less money to spend on their own living because of healthcare taxes. Even if you earn 1000$ a month, after they introduce the public healthcare you will earn 100$ less. If you have a crappy job that might make a huge difference. Also, that's 100$ that you could've invested or saved in case something happens to you 40 years later, in case you needed quality medical service. If you're fine and healthy until the day you die you'd have saved 50k $ for your children.

Now if you earn more that gets crazy. Earning 10k $/month you will pay about 1k$ every month for your country to heal bums that were too lazy to find a better job and afford healthcare. Who cares that with private healthcare you could just outright buy 5 kidneys just for fun for that money. With public one you get shittier service and ridiculous waiting times if you really need one as a "thank you". Or not get one ever, because you're too old.
The government isn't as successful with allocating public money too, they have a tendency of wasting it.

It's one side of looking at things. Personally I don't think it's a perfect solution because something could happen to you and you were too careless with money (which rationally thinking is your problem) that you simply couldn't afford a surgery you really needed.
I believe it's still better than most modern public healthcare systems anyway, since with one of those you wouldn't get that surgery on time anyway, or they'd refuse it.

If there was a public healthcare system of high quality, one that would be well managed and simply working, and the taxes issue would be reasonably solved then I'm willing to make that sacrifice and be able to justify contributing to it, but even some amongst the "best working" public systems these days from my point of view are not good enough. Most "public" systems are good mostly for people who are a burden to society.

 

[Pittsey]

People who can't afford it will have even less money to spend on their own living because of healthcare taxes. Even if you earn 1000$ a month, after they introduce the public healthcare you will earn 100$ less. If you have a crappy job that might make a huge difference. Also, that's 100$ that you could've invested or saved in case something happens to you 40 years later, in case you needed quality medical service. If you're fine and healthy until the day you die you'd have saved 50k $ for your children.

Now if you earn more that gets crazy. Earning 10k $/month you will pay about 1k$ every month for your country to heal bums that were too lazy to find a better job and afford healthcare. Who cares that with private healthcare you could just outright buy 5 kidneys just for fun for that money. With public one you get shittier service and ridiculous waiting times if you really need one as a "thank you". Or not get one ever, because you're too old.
The government isn't as successful with allocating public money too, they have a tendency of wasting it.

It's one side of looking at things. Personally I don't think it's a perfect solution because something could happen to you and you were too careless with money (which rationally thinking is your problem) that you simply couldn't afford a surgery you really needed.
I believe it's still better than most modern public healthcare systems anyway, since with one of those you wouldn't get that surgery on time anyway, or they'd refuse it.

If there was a public healthcare system of high quality, one that would be well managed and simply working, and the taxes issue would be reasonably solved then I'm willing to make that sacrifice and be able to justify contributing to it, but even some amongst the "best working" public systems these days from my point of view are not good enough. Most "public" systems are good mostly for people who are a burden to society.

Would you rather have your tax spent on a social health system to support everyone, including those less fortunate than yourself, or would you rather it go in the pockets of politicians? Money is wasted all over the place. I can't see a government charging a 10% tax increase to create a public health system. I imagine it be more like 2%. Most people earn about $2000 a month, I suspect. That means the cost to you would be $40. That wouldn't even cover the cost of getting your toenails cut with private health care. And it isn't just a service for lazy bums, it is a service for everyone including yourself.

Take this scenario...

You are obviously going to be successful in life, so can afford, or will be provided with private health care or insurance. But imagine that there for whatever reason you were laid off from work in your sector, the recession hits hard. You don't get a job for at least the next few weeks, and your insurance lapses. You cross the road while going to the job centre, at a crossing, because you are an intelligent guy. A car jumps the lights and knocks you down. You are completely fucked, several damaged bones requiring several operations and a lot of physio, or worse, you end up in a wheel chair and need treatment for the rest of your life... Where is the money coming from now? You are left to suffer, no support, no treatment.

For $40, you are protected. And you probably won't even miss it. I am sure (I never studied economics) that if there is a tax increase, your cost of living goes up, which drives inflation, which means you will get a wage rise unless you work for an awful company.

 

[masta247]

Would you rather have your tax spent on a social health system to support everyone, including those less fortunate than yourself, or would you rather it go in the pockets of politicians?

I think that with public health system more money goes in the pockets of politicians than without it because of increased administration spendings and more fraud opportunities - without it it goes in to your pocket. I don't know how much of that tax money would fund surgeries and such but I can suspect that much less than you pay for.

I can see your example happening in real life, that's where a public health system would clearly be superior. After all I think that both systems have their positives and negatives, and which one seems better depends on different points of view and circumstances.
What I can clearly agree on is that a public health system provides people with feeling of safety but I think it falls short in many cases when you really need it. Most of the systems that exist today are so flawed that they'd need to be re-planned from scratch and challenge the issues and limitations of current public health systems.

On a side note health care in America is ridiculously expensive so I can see the need for public health care being bigger than anywhere else.

 

[Pittsey]

Most of the systems that exist today are so flawed that they'd need to be re-planned from scratch and challenge the issues and limitations of current public health systems.

I agree. In England, for example, our country is so old that most it was developed as we went, without any forward planning. Buildings have been in place for 100s of years with no thought of roads. Our sewer, and water supply systems have been built without the capacity required now, and would cost an absolute fortune to bring up to a future proof standard. The NHS, although functional, is wasting money, especially on computer systems that don't work and management rather than on front line services. It could do with some serious modernisation. The main problem with the UK is it's age. Problems that newly developed countries, like South Korea, do not have.

 

[ArtsyGirl]

Public money is for the PUBLIC. One essential for society is HEALTH. Without it you have people dying from a fever because Emergency Rooms won't treat you because of the policy of Insurance Companies.

Public Healthcare Systems are not perfect, and can have a waiting period. It is very much prioritised. My cousin was diagnosed with Leukemia on a Friday and by the Monday was going through her first rounds of Chemo. Within a year or so was given a bone marrow transplant that worked and it has been 3 years. It was a very aggressive form of Leukemia and the diagnosis for going the Chemo/Radiation route was a much much shorter life. All through the Public System, and no it wasn't always perfect but I will take that over a Private system ANY day. If it ever changed I'd seriously consider moving country.

Here's an idea America, stop giving the Rich a free ride and inject some of that money into Healthcare! Oh but that's socialism and that's bad for some reason?

The trickle down affect is not real.

 

[EDouble]

I havent read the whole thread, but my opinion is obama isnt up to par to gw bush or clinton. alot of people I know voted for obama won't be voting for him this year

 

[roaches]

Without it you have people dying from a fever because Emergency Rooms won't treat you because of the policy of Insurance Companies.

That's been illegal in the United States for quite some time: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395dd

Here's an idea America, stop giving the Rich a free ride and inject some of that money into Healthcare! Oh but that's socialism and that's bad for some reason?

It's only bad because Republicans decided anything Obama does is bad. But is forcing everyone to buy private health insurance really going to solve problems caused by the American lifestyle?

And who really gives a fuck about healthcare and the financial crisis anymore? One is over. The other's in the Supreme Court's hands. This guy Obama is the most secretive president ever, kills children, targets emergency responders and funerals for airstrikes as a matter of policy, and defines a terrorist as any military-age male he happens to kill. That doesn't worry anyone?

 

[Pittsey]

This guy Obama is the most secretive president ever, kills children, targets emergency responders and funerals for airstrikes as a matter of policy, and defines a terrorist as any military-age male he happens to kill. That doesn't worry anyone?

Is that Obama's policies though? To me he comes across as a liberal man of the people, whose hands are tied by his supporters and backers (some may say handlers)... Is my take on him wrong, in your opinion?