What do you think of Obama's health care an/or economy package(s)

That's sort of the point of paying taxes, you contribute to the country and the country contributes to you, the country redistributes taxes where they are needed for it to operate best as a whole, and in return you get to live in a country which operates.

Tax is not playing catch with money, it's playing pass the parcel.

 

I thought the British government was fucked up, but in comparison with you guys, we're almost inspirational. It seems primitive not to have a state healthcare, most people just don't want change. I doubt private healthcare would be illegal in the US, so you still have a choice, you're just getting something for nothing basically. British healthcare is surprisingly good, and just because it's government funded doesn't make it unprofessional by any means. If anything, not having to run it like a business makes it even better, because saving money isn't a factor in your care.

I simply can't reiterate what Chris0132 and nebajoth have said enough.

 

Could you please elaborate, exactly what ideals do they have in common?

Not necessarily true as the increased demand will cause an increase in supply, more doctors will be employed and hospitals built. This will allow more people to obtain healthcare without a decay in the quality of service or a huge increase in waiting time.

I'm not sure what you mean here could you please elaborate.

 

He means that you might end up paying tax towards the healthcare service and not use it for that year, so you aren't getting all the returns from the tax you pay.

Although why he thinks that is a bad thing is strange, considering I assume he doesn't drive in every bit of road, and use every public amenity in the whole of america every year.

The idea that you give the government your taxes and they give them straight back to you is silly, why not just not have taxes if that's all you're going to do with the money?

Taxes maintain the country, and in return for them you get to live in the country. You might not use all the country but it all needs to be maintained.

Think of it like living in a big old house, you don't use all the rooms, but you need to pay for them all to be cleaned and for all the holes in the roof and walls to be patched because if you don't, they'll decay and that decay will spread through the house. If the government doesn't direct money away from places which don't need it into places which do, you no longer have a country, you have the feudal system.

 

He means, that money from public insurance wont be enough.
It's a fact.
Either your government will be pumping money (which you don't have) in it, or your public healthcare will fail.
It's a fact.

I am from doctorin family, my grandma, father, mother are doctors, they know how it looks from inside. Also lots of polish doctors went to UK to work.

And neither Polish nor British public healthcare aint good.
There are long queues in both countries.

Money is main problem, not lack of hospitals and doctors.

 

If there are queues that means lots of people need treatment.

Making the system private may reduce the queues but it doesn't magically make people stop needing treatment, it just means they don't get any.

If you have lots of people lining up to get into a shop, you don't close the shop to make the people go away, you open more checkouts to serve more people.

As I've said before, if you NEED treatment, you get it, if you can wait, you wait, people don't come into hospital with a limb missing and sit in the waiting room for two hours, they go straight to accident and emergency and get stitched up.

 

Argument about shops is totally wrong.
Shops make money. More shops, more money.
Hospitals cost money. More hospitals, less money.

Public insurance that everybody can afford, will suffice only for basic, cheaper stuff. You have to rip off weathy people that dont want to wait.

Cheap public healthcare is a lie. Either it fails horribly, or it's not-that-cheap

 

The argument is based on the idea that both shops and hospitals are supposed to provide a service, if lots of people require that service the response should not be to chase most of them off to make the place look tidy.

If you prefer, assume many people want to use a road, you don't respond by closing the road so that cars don't drive down it and take up space, because the function of the road is to carry traffic, just as the function of a hospital is to heal sick people.

I did not suggest that it would be cheap to run a national health system, the NHS is certainly not cheap, but it is a good idea, and it runs quite nicely on the money it is given, caters to most all ailments suffered by people, and generally keeps the population in good health, which is what a health service is supposed to do.

 

Your leg hurts? Let's see...oh yes, you got an appointment in 2010. Have a nice day, sir!

 

No, your appointment is probably next week at your local surgery if they're jam packed, or you can make one tomorrow if it's really painful.

Whenever I've been in pain or even the one time I was slightly dizzy due to what turned out to be an ear infection, I've had an appointment usually that day, they give you something for it and maybe schedule a follow up in a week or two, you may also have to wait a week for a particular treatment if it isn't urgent (it took two weeks for me to have the verruca on my foot seen to, longest appointment I've ever had).

I live in a country with nationalised healthcare, I know how long it takes to be seen by a doctor, you're just pulling numbers out your ass.

I also live next to one of the biggest hospitals in europe: http://www.southtees.nhs.uk/live/?a=1799 I went there for my appendectomy, they have these weird TV/internet things on big swivel arms on every bed, you buy the cards for them downstairs and you can use the internet, call people, they can call you too, so every patient has a phone and TV and internet access, pimp as shit. They also have some pretty hot nurses.

 

Here it takes ages. We got strictly national healthcare and it totally fails.

 

Has it occured to you that it's just your particular implementation that sucks and that it isn't a problem with nationalised healthcare as a whole?

 

Or most of succesfull national healthcares got one thing:
MONEY

And that money does not come from basic insurances. It comes from higher taxes (oh wait, you pay them, so it's not that cheap!) or external factors (oil, etc.)

 

You used an analogy that isn't useful at all and then you proved what you wanted.

And if I don't feed the government (except taxes for army/police/courts) nothing bad will happen. People who need the money will just EARN IT. There is a small difference between earning money and begging for it but it's important.

You have luxury of living in a country that is rich enough to waste huge amounts of money.

Queues disappear in private healthcare because something is priced higher. When it's priced higher more people will do it (for instance more people work as a doctor). Which will lead to shorter queues.

In public healthcare government official decides what needs more money. For political/technical reasons he won't assigns funds as efficiently as free market.

And no, implementation in Poland is the same as everywhere else. Amount of funding makes flaws more visible.

 

Personally, I think they just need to make a government system to compete with private health care providers.

The problem with private health care is that there isn't really much competition. It's on oligopoly. They are allowed to force you to only go to certain doctors to get coverage you are paying for. I mean, wtf?

There is no consumer power when it comes to insurance company's. There is no competition. Doctors can charge whatever they want, because most people just pay nothing or a 10$ co pay while the doctor bills the insurance company for $75 or $100 for waiting in their office for an hour, then waiting in the waiting room for 20 minutes, and then a 5 minute consult here he looks at you, tells you whats wrong, writes a generic prescription, and asks you to come back in 3 days for a followup, and then a week after that.

How does this differ from what would happen with government run doctors office? I'll bet the doctor will get paid a salary, and there would be no charge because it is covered in taxes. And that $1000-$2500 for insurance?

How much will taxes for this be from your paycheck? I sure as hell didn't pay that much for insurance. Maybe they might even be able to do something like a tax credit for having private insurance?

Holy shit, I think I just fixed the US health care issue.

 

Actually, the queue's disappear because less people can afford private healthcare. If you make something more expensive, those who can't afford it won't get it. That's essentially the system we have in the U.S. and, trust me, its not superior to the socialized systems in Canada/Europe.

 

No. I mentioned arguments earlier.

Flasche you're fucking funny. Why didn't they start a public healthcare system if they wanted it in 1776? Because they didn't want it in the first place. Democracy in early USA was a bit different. No voting rights for blacks (not that it changes anything), women, people from Washington or people without income. You had to pay voting tax to vote.

Now a lazy dumbass can vote on someone who will say that he DESERVES healthcare and someone else has to PAY for it.

For me democracy is a system where majority can overrule minorities. Republic is a system where majority is limited by constitution. Lately, USA is more democratic than republican.

Emergency healthcare services should be public I think that everyone agrees on this.

 

What is your point here? Democracy in the USA has changed over time, why would the government not change its priorities and its services offered to represent its new demographic. Priorities change in response to situational changes as well, there is little need for the US to have such a large military as the chances of the US getting attacked are small, socialised health care is far more beneficial for the country as a whole then a large army but strangely there is far more support for the latter than former.

If he deserves healthcare then it probable that his illness will impair his ability to do his job. Therefore by treating his illness he is now able to work better, which will mean that he can pay more taxes to fund the system and his firm will be working more efficiently making it more able to pay the increased taxes.