Health Care and the 2008 Election

Health Care and the 2008 Election (Read 807 times)

Print

Jeff

#1 March 13, 2008, 11:16:38 pm

Warning: Harsh
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 1461

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.

Logged

Cho

#2 March 14, 2008, 03:58:28 am

Comrade!
Group: Member
Joined: Jun 6, 2004
Posts: 438

Obama's is more cost effective,
Clinton's requires all American citizens to have health insurance.
CNN, 2007

General summary:

Quote from: Obama

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.

Quote from: Clinton

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.

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.

Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 04:01:27 am by Cho

Logged

Artis Leon Ivey Jr

#3 March 14, 2008, 04:52:03 am

Insane teacher
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 10515

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!

brian chemicals

Logged

Ryan

#4 March 14, 2008, 04:55:52 am

thx ds k?
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 4460

Quote from: Omega the Unknown on March 14, 2008, 04:52:03 am

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

Logged

Silhouette

#5 March 14, 2008, 06:38:12 am

Hey, I'm back. Cool, huh?
Group: Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 171

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.

Webmaster, www.wmsigler.net

Logged

The Truth

#6 March 14, 2008, 06:59:59 am

SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 15, 2003
Posts: 1204

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

--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....

Logged

Artis Leon Ivey Jr

#7 March 14, 2008, 03:26:23 pm

Insane teacher
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 10515

Quote from: The Truth on March 14, 2008, 06:59:59 am

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.

Quote from: Silhouette on March 14, 2008, 06:38:12 am

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.

brian chemicals

Logged

Jeff

#8 March 14, 2008, 05:56:45 pm

Warning: Harsh
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 1461

Quote from: Omega the Unknown on March 14, 2008, 03:26:23 pm

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.

Logged

The Truth

#9 March 14, 2008, 07:46:17 pm

SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 15, 2003
Posts: 1204

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...

--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....

Logged

Jeff

#10 March 14, 2008, 08:05:00 pm

Warning: Harsh
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 1461

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.

Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 08:07:20 pm by Jeff

Logged

The Truth

#11 March 14, 2008, 08:41:13 pm

SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 15, 2003
Posts: 1204

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.

--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....

Logged

Cho

#12 March 14, 2008, 08:45:43 pm

Comrade!
Group: Member
Joined: Jun 6, 2004
Posts: 438

Quote

(once we destroy the health care companies)

Why do you want to destroy American jobs? Is it because you hate Freedom and Democracy?

Quote

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.

Logged

Artis Leon Ivey Jr

#13 March 14, 2008, 08:54:26 pm

Insane teacher
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 10515

Quote

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

brian chemicals

Logged

Jeff

#14 March 14, 2008, 08:58:50 pm

Warning: Harsh
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 5, 2003
Posts: 1461

Thanks, Steel, that's much more what I was looking for than LIBERAL RAGE.

Logged

The Truth

#15 March 14, 2008, 09:03:28 pm

SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 15, 2003
Posts: 1204

Quote from: Jeff on March 14, 2008, 08:58:50 pm

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*

--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....

Logged

Artis Leon Ivey Jr

#16 March 14, 2008, 09:04:09 pm

Insane teacher
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 10515

no he was looking for an answer to the question and instead you jumped all over him screaming about corporations.

brian chemicals

Logged

Ryan

#17 March 14, 2008, 09:35:21 pm

thx ds k?
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 4460

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.

Logged

The Truth

#18 March 14, 2008, 10:18:17 pm

SB is unaware that Dimmu sucks
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 15, 2003
Posts: 1204

Quote from: Ryan on March 14, 2008, 09:35:21 pm

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

--- Back when we were young and loved the internet....

Logged

Artis Leon Ivey Jr

#19 March 14, 2008, 10:21:25 pm

Insane teacher
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 10515

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.

brian chemicals

Logged

Finality

#20 March 20, 2008, 03:59:40 am

Still a Roleplay Reformer...
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2002
Posts: 79

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.

Logged