The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[Spekkio]

You are already paying for the jobless sloths' and their many dependents' healthcare. The people without coverage are those people who have full-time jobs but lack health insurance. We are talking about people who are working class to middle class; a large percentage of people are college graduates who have entry level jobs but they are too old to still be under their parent's insurance.

Thread winner!

Now as far as everyone having a problem with the freeloaders: Aside from the fact that you're already paying for them in our current system as mentioned above, why don't you get upset that people who don't work still enjoy police protection? Firemen? Public education? The military? Roads? These services are all provided by the government not because you have a right to them in the Constitution, but because A) the government can do it better and cheaper than private companies and B) the value of providing these services to society, even the 4.7% who supposedly willingly don't pay for them, is greater than the value of choosing whether or not you want to pay for it.

Yes, healthcare is a business. That's because we live in a free market society and we're able to spend our money as we please.

We're actually a mixed economy. As I mentioned above, we still have to pay some of our income involuntarily to services that the government provides. Additionally, there are times where the government will step in to prevent abusive business practices in order to protect workers and consumers.

 

[Spekkio]

I would argue that we pay the highest, not only because of the money making, but because of research. Do a quick google and find out how many medical breakthroughs are coming out of the US and not other countries. Somebody's got to pay for the research, and that's why health care costs so much.

As far as pharmaceutical companies, most income goes toward advertising. In general, most medical research is funded through federal grants given to universities provided by, you guessed it, your taxes. The rest is mostly given by private donors [read: wealthy business owners] who are also buying their kids a seat in Harvard, and then you have charitable donations as well. The fact that we have so many new studies coming out is a tribute to our higher education, and not to our medical system.

When you're getting your hospital bill in the mail, you're paying for a lot of things, but you're not paying for the research.

 

[Herc_Dude]

As far as pharmaceutical companies, most income goes toward advertising. In general, most medical research is funded through federal grants given to universities provided by, you guessed it, your taxes. The rest is given by private donors. The fact that we have so many new studies coming out is a tribute to our higher education, and not to our medical system.

When you're getting your hospital bill in the mail, you're paying for a lot of things, but you're not paying for the research.

I would like to see where you get this info - the cost of research and development of a drug is through the roof, getting the FDA to approve it costs even more. Then what happens when they don't approve the drug? Like any other market, those costs get passed on. While I do not agree with the pharm. companies attempts to drug our country to no end, it does cost a shit ton to get a drug out to the people (before they start advertising).

 

[Birdman]

You are already paying for the jobless sloths' and their many dependents' healthcare. The people without coverage are those people who have full-time jobs but lack health insurance. We are talking about people who are working class to middle class; a large percentage of people are college graduates who have entry level jobs but they are too old to still be under their parent's insurance.

I"m working security to get me through school right now, and through my security company I'm eligible for insurance. If you have a H.S diploma and are willing to work you can get insurance. Some people may not have H.S diplomas, but they are so easy to get it's really your own fault for not doing so.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Being a black neighborhood has nothing to do with economic depression...

I've been in plenty of poor neighborhoods...all of which resemble the "rich suburbs" compared to the ghetto of foreign countries...most notably Middle Eastern countries...

No one forces people to do payday loans...and in order to get out of the toilet you have to realize that sometimes you'll get shit on...it's those who don't celebrate their hardships by accepting government (taxpayer) charity...but rather create THEIR OWN Charity and work hard to accomplish something. Throwing money at poor people will only encourage them to remain poor. That's a fact.

Please reread the sentence. I said, "a predominately Black neighborhood that is economically depressed." There are two distinctions there: a) Black neighborhood and b) economically depressed.

The reason that there are more payday loan institutions in these areas is because people utilize these services more than they do a bank. There is more demand for payday loans than there are banks. So, how do you expect people from these neighborhoods to have investments when so many don't even have bank accounts; not to mention, that half of their checks are already promised away to these payday loans because too many people use them as long term financial solutions.

I absolutely hate the perception that being poor means that you are lazy or stupid. At one time, I worked two full time jobs at the same time. One job was with a factory in which I worked a twelve hour shift. The second was as a receptionist for an academic program. I would work 7pm to 7am, come home to shower, then go to my other job from 9am to 5pm, and run home to get an hour nap. I would do this three to four times out of the week. The factory paid me $6.30 an hour and the other paid me $7.50. I was ineligble for health insurance for both positions; the factory required a six month probationary period and the academic unit considered me a temporary hourly worker. I had to use four paychecks (two weeks pay from both jobs) in order to pay for my rent with the other checks I paid for food, my bills, and my transportation costs while saving for books for when classes started again. I physically collapsed at work because of exhaustion and heat (it was plus 150 degrees inside the factory); I didn't have health insurance so I had to pay for my expenses with two paychecks which threw me behind in my rent and other bills.

I only did this for a summer. There were people at this factory who were working two to three jobs while trying to raise their kids. They made too much to qualify for Medicaid but they certainly didn't make enough to save for investments and many didn't have health insurance. It was a gamble. If you got your arm caught in a machine at work, you paid for the injury, and you risked losing one of your jobs. They definitely weren't lazy people. Neither were they stupid, quite a few of them were full time employees with multiple jobs and full/part time students.

There are millions of people stuck in this purgatory in which they earn too much to qualify for aide but they don't make enough to set aside for that "emergency." These are the people that would be covered by a universal plan.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

I"m working security to get me through school right now, and through my security company I'm eligible for insurance. If you have a H.S diploma and are willing to work you can get insurance. Some people may not have H.S diplomas, but they are so easy to get it's really your own fault for not doing so.

Being a H.S. graduate isn't an appropriate correlation, in my opinion. Many people who are underinsured or uninsured are those people who recently graduated from college but are working in an entry level job.

 

[Cate]

Being a H.S. graduate isn't an appropriate correlation, in my opinion. Many people who are underinsured or uninsured are those people who recently graduated from college but are working in an entry level job.

I was out of college and working full-time for six months before I found a position that offered insurance. If anything'd happened in that period, I'd have been SOL.

 

[ChunksJR]

....those people who recently graduated from college but are working in an entry level job.

There's a reason it's called "entry"

 

[ChunksJR]

It also hasn't been mentioned that there is (are) a great job with health care, 30 days paid vacation with WELL ABOVE minimum wage waiting for them:

www.navy.mil
www.army.mil
www.uscg.mil
www.airforce.mil

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

There's a reason it's called "entry"

Of course, but it certainly dispels the notion that all the people without health insurance are those stupid slobs that refuse to get a job, now don't it?

Like Cate, after I graduated from law school, I accepted a research position with a legal research program. I worked 40 hours a week for an entire year but I didn't have health insurance or any kind of retirement plan. Luckily, I am a pretty healthy person so I didn't have to worry about presciptions or regular visits; yet, if I had gotten into one car accident or if I had found a cancerous lump in my breast....

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

It also hasn't been mentioned that there is (are) a great job with health care, 30 days paid vacation with WELL ABOVE minimum wage waiting for them:

www.navy.mil
www.army.mil
www.uscg.mil
www.airforce.mil

And if you are that poor kid that had melanoma while in graduate school, do you still qualify? Or, what if you were diagnosed with anxiety disorder and have been Zoloft for years?

Truth is, do you want the military to be the default catch-all? Is it a career that one should "settle for" when they can't get anything better?

 

[ChunksJR]

I was out of college and working full-time for six months before I found a position that offered insurance. If anything'd happened in that period, I'd have been SOL.

Not true...ERs are required to stabilize you at the expense of the hospital...but I'm proud of you not resting on your laurels and staying with a job that didn't give you everything you want (insurance included)...too many people do that and then whine about it.

~D

 

[ChunksJR]

if I had gotten into one car accident or if I had found a cancerous lump in my breast....

ERs would have stabilized you.

American Cancer Society has numberous assistance programs...part of the reason they get some of my CFC $$.

 

[ChunksJR]

And if you are that poor kid that had melanoma while in graduate school, do you still qualify? Or, what if you were diagnosed with anxiety disorder and have been Zoloft for years?

I don't know. You should ask the recruiter...not me. My heart surgery and the staple still in my heart didn't disqualify me to not only join, but fly (despite what I THOUGHT would happen). My femur length was the only disqualifying factor I had (and even that was only in the EA6-B).

Truth is, do you want the military to be the default catch-all? Is it a career that one should "settle for" when they can't get anything better?

Not at all, but too few consider service over whining about what they feel they have a "right" to.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Not true...ERs are required to stabilize you at the expense of the hospital...but I'm proud of you not resting on your laurels and staying with a job that didn't give you everything you want (insurance included)...too many people do that and then whine about it.

~D

Operative term is: STABILIZE

Stabilize does not mean treat and rehabilitate and it only applies to emergency situations. You get into a car accident, EMTALA applies but you have cancer, then you better hope to find access to charitable hospital.