Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: Jeff on March 13, 2008, 11:16:38 pm
-
Okay, I know this has been a hot topic in the primary topic, but I think it would be nice to make a quick reference topic about this. Each of the three major candidates have relatively unique proposals for how to cover the over 40 million Americans without insurance. I know McCain's side of it, so I will add that to the topic soon, what I would like to get from you guys is information on Obama and Hillary in regards to their UHC plans. I'll grab the major parts of it and edit them into this post so that people have a similar reference topic to health care as the sticky that covers the other major issues. After we get a consolidation of information here (or before) we can start debating on whose plan is the best.
-
Obama's is more cost effective,
Clinton's requires all American citizens to have health insurance.
CNN, 2007 (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/26/clinton.obama.health/index.html)
General summary:
Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. ... The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.
Information regarding the FEHBP can be found here (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/).
Though really I would like someone more knowledgeable to come in to explain it, because neither plan seem to be radically different besides the fact that Clinton's all "YOU HAVE TO HAVE INSURANCE RAH" and after glancing over their websites I realized I don't feel like actually sitting down and reading through all of them.
-
they aren't all that different honestly, neither is close to UHC, but w/e any little step is good. I think you found the real difference so good job!
-
they aren't all that different honestly, neither is close to UHC, but w/e any little step is good. I think you found the real difference so good job!
not that i'm disagreeing with you (i don't know much about health care), but how are they not close to UHC? i thought they are both pretty much UHC, just with a more capitalistic focus rather than a more socialistic focus
-
I admit that I'm not too aware on this issue (on either side), but I've heard a lot about Clinton's, that it would basically force health insurance on people. Making it sound like it'd be illegal NOT to own it. Which is ridiculous, since people might not be able to afford it. And if it was free or near-free, that's still ridiculous, and sounds like "living-on-the-dole" socialism.
-
Maybe we should just not force "insurance" on people, but have a tax based service to pay for all medical costs, keeping any of this beurocracy off the patient
idk it seems to work out ok for EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WESTERN WORLD
-
Maybe we should just not force "insurance" on people, but have a tax based service to pay for all medical costs, keeping any of this beurocracy off the patient
idk it seems to work out ok for EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WESTERN WORLD
basically this. the fact that Americans have to rely on privatized health care that they end up paying more for than in UHC is pretty nuts and it's not UHC yet, just a step that way.
I admit that I'm not too aware on this issue (on either side), but I've heard a lot about Clinton's, that it would basically force health insurance on people. Making it sound like it'd be illegal NOT to own it. Which is ridiculous, since people might not be able to afford it. And if it was free or near-free, that's still ridiculous, and sounds like "living-on-the-dole" socialism.
I agree people should die because they can't pay for a flu shot ON THE DOLE ON THE DOLE.
-
basically this. the fact that Americans have to rely on privatized health care that they end up paying more for than in UHC is pretty nuts and it's not UHC yet, just a step that way.
I might have missed the numbers in the primary topic, but could you run them by me again? Under UHC, what is the estimated % of tax one must pay for the healthcare system and compare that to the average amount that people pay yearly for insurance. I would like to see where you get this information.
-
Come on man, stop pretending to care about HOW THE TAX INCREASES ARE GOING TO EFFECT THE POOR UNDER UHC.
Because you know as well as I do that they WON'T. Taxes are based on income! And those who need the help the most (IE the people we're trying to institute UHC for, the 40 million+ americans who cannot afford healthcare) will not see an increase really AT ALL in their taxes.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS TRUTH I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR SOME SOCIALIST FAGGOT'S BROKEN ARM. You guys realize that you will probably end up paying LESS under true UHC (once we destroy the health care companies), in your tax dollars (MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH LESS) than you pay on your premiums and your monthly fees and your copays etc etc with your health insurance company now right? Even big corporations need to realize that yes, they may be taxed a LOT more, they won't have to gouge their eyes out to big HC companies like Kaiser Permanente and Blue Cross Blue Shield (NOT THAT THEY CARE SINCE MOST ARE PHASING HEALTH COVERAGE OUT, OR MAKING THE EMPLOYEE FOOT 90%+ OF THEIR PREMIUMS).
Anyone who argues against uhc sorry to say is just wrong. There's no room for argument, anyone who says WE DON'T NEED THIS SOCIALISED MEDICINE is pretty much a monster (lol) or really fucking stupid and can't get past even a small level of AMERICAN BRAND ANTI SOCIALIST cognitive dissonance.
but hey who am i to make this argument i mean it never works anywhere in the world it cripples their economy right?
oh wait what's that? The UK is one of the strongest countries economically in the world and were one of the first to institute true UHC? Their people live much longer lives than americans, are psychologically more happy, and still manage to have a higher quality of life?
fukn socialists this is our country...
-
Thanks for the rant and for attaching a bunch of things to my post that I did not say, but that didn't answer my question.
-
Actually it did answer your question. You would have to be, I don't know, BRAINDEAD not to understand that you pay more for privatized health care (think about what you privatize it for: a profit, oh so they make money i mean WOW).
When companies like Kaiser Permanente:
Gross BILLIONS.............................................................................................................................................
i don't know maybe i'm not very good at math but the fact that they make ridiculous profit margins should tell you that they are raising the price of care ASTRONOMICALLY.
You don't need a pie chart to tell you this, i mean maybe YOU REALLY WANT ONE because you are in denial or something, but there it is, LOGIC, in black and white.
-
(once we destroy the health care companies)
Why do you want to destroy American jobs? Is it because you hate Freedom and Democracy?
I might have missed the numbers in the primary topic, but could you run them by me again? Under UHC, what is the estimated % of tax one must pay for the healthcare system and compare that to the average amount that people pay yearly for insurance. I would like to see where you get this information.
I would too, actually.
-
According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison:
Australia: $1017
Canada: $916
Sweden: $532
United Kingdom: $397
The first of those is the second-highest in the world - meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.
It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:
Australia: $2106
Canada: $2338
Sweden: $2468
United Kingdom: $2372
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=nha
http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?DatasetCode=HEALTH
-
Thanks, Steel, that's much more what I was looking for than LIBERAL RAGE.
-
Thanks, Steel, that's much more what I was looking for than LIBERAL RAGE.
Were you looking for conservative stupidity or conservative STICK MY FINGERS IN MY EARS AND PRETEND I CAN'T HEAR THIS LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA *brushes mustache with new solid gold plated mustache brush while watching your world with cavuto*
-
no he was looking for an answer to the question and instead you jumped all over him screaming about corporations.
-
truth shut the hell up honestly.
he had a legitimate question that wasn't really partisan at all! we get it.... jeff is a scummy conservative..... ugh.. but nothing in his question reeked of KARL ROVE POLITIKS or whatever you were looking for so chill.
-
truth shut the hell up honestly.
he had a legitimate question that wasn't really partisan at all! we get it.... jeff is a scummy conservative..... ugh.. but nothing in his question reeked of KARL ROVE POLITIKS or whatever you were looking for so chill.
i've read tons of posts from him about uhc, and i answered his question without googling some statistic he could as easily have googled. I tried to answer his question using logical conclusions
also blow me on the whole scummy conservative thing ok, when i had shitty opinions on things people jumped all over me and said YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE JUST WRONG
and i was wrong, it's kind of a double standard don't you think
-
no you didn't answer his question. he didn't ask HOW CAN TAXES PAY I DONT GET HOW, he wanted me to reply with numbers. Jeff knows how taxes are redistributed (I hope) so yeah guy comparing this to you going into topics and saying GOOOO BUSHHH isn't the same.
-
This is personally the most decisive topic concerning the election. The US should have had some sort of universal healthcare a long time ago. Thanks for the info guys.
-
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?countries=all&indicators=nha
http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?DatasetCode=HEALTH
You should probably take into account that the UK NHS isn't really a role model. There are shit loads of budget problems and lots of wards go under financed.
Personally, if I can afford it, I will probably get health insurance (bupa or something). As much as I think it's un-ethical that someone with more money can get better treatment, I'm not willing to sacrice my health for my moral grounds. This isn't to say that their shouldn't be a national health service though. It just means that it should be improved. At least in UK.
-
Yeah just want to emphasise that our health care isn;t exactly great. We have some phenominal services indeed, but like if you've had an accident and have to wait to be seen, or if you've had an op and need to rest in a hospital bed to recover. These things are relatively bad, and as soon as I am through with education and striking it money, I'll be going for private healthcare (I already have private dentist(and I'm still like lower-working class!) because the nearest National one is so totally overbooked as to not be able to have appointments).
Lyndon, It's pretty good that you want to go for someone like Bupa. By allowing the more richer/privaliged to pay for their healthcare,. that frees up beds, time and space in the national healthcare and helps it a lot more than it would if everybody rich and poor was on it, because you're giving the less privalidged more of a chancE!!
-
You should probably take into account that the UK NHS isn't really a role model. There are shit loads of budget problems and lots of wards go under financed.
this IS taken into account. even with your flaws, you have a much better system than we do.
-
I don't even understand how countries without some kind of NHS can consider themselves civilized.
-
It isn't just a country calling itself civilized, it's a country that calls itself the leader of the free world. We consider ourselves the rulers of the world, and at one time we had a lot of political power across the globe.
-
The wait still isn't as bad as some places like Canada where it's all dependent on the government system.
-
The wait still isn't as bad as some places like Canada where it's all dependent on the government system.
http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf
-
only negroes lack welfare (they should die)
-
What causes the longer waiting times though? Lack of funds or the fact that more people get health care thus making the quenes longer? More funds would make the queues longer but is the funds really the difference betwen an american and a canadian hospital?
-
Uh, I don't know exactly that we can attribute UHC to the lifespan and quality of life for UKers, doesn't that have more to do with their culture and eating habits? I'm sure UHC has something to do with it, but I don't think the effect is as profound unless there is some evidence somewhere that proves why.