101 replies to this topic

[DarkFox]

It has to be expensive because healthcare providers in the USA are among the highest paid professions on the planet. They will never give up their bank accounts in trade for a higher workload... never.

 

 

Last I checked Popsicle sticks don't cost a dollar each. Monopolies is what causes high prices. Every single step of our healthcare is for profit. Next time you get a routine procedure ask for an itemized bill. Everything is inflated, especially when you have insurance. If we break it into averages here is the math

 

doctor average salary $189,000 

average cost of doctor's visit $200

average hours per week 59.6 (will round to 60 for this example)

average time spent in an appointment 16 minutes

 

That is 45k income per week. So just paying the yearly salary for that doctor takes under 5 weeks. Now yes there are other employees there but just going off of what you said about salary being the main expense, this should prove it is in fact not. Medical supplies, machines and the medicine itself are the highest cost. The machines are fairly close to competitively priced so if its not that then it must be the medicine and supplies that are marked up. The people who decide that are the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. Insurance companies are notorious at forcing hospitals they don't own to buy certain products from certain companies, which in many cases are sister companies or owned by the same insurance companies. 

 

In fact one of the main reasons why Obamacare lacks is because they are forcing people to buy into insurance instead of just expanding medicare and cutting out the middleman. Sure it would screw over the health insurance companies, but lets face it; they have been screwing us for a long time.

[Lysistrata]

Hey DarkFox! Yes, my answer about why it's expensive only scratched the surface, in truth, everything that touches the healthcare industry raises the costs. It really can be explained best with the deadly combination of life, need, expectation, blame, government intervention, and greed. Why would anyone have to pay $300,000 for an operation that should cost... maybe $10,000? Because way too many people are not paying, and of course, they can get it.

 

It's 2017, and everything we do in our lives is better, faster, safer, more efficient, and more available than it was 50 years ago... except everything the government touches. The more options we have, the less things cost. More regulations, requirements, entitlements, expectations, and penalties... the more and more it costs, and the harder it becomes to deliver. Instead of having a medical version of Ebay or Hotels.com where we can get our triple bypass with a credit card, close to home, and for the best price... we have a system that has never been able to move into the 21st century, and bogged down with a bunch of crying babies that don't want to be responsible for their own lives. It's pathetic.

[Sister Midnight]

.  
In fact one of the main reasons why Obamacare lacks is because they are forcing people to buy into insurance instead of just expanding medicare and cutting out the middleman. Sure it would screw over the health insurance companies, but lets face it; they have been screwing us for a long time.

QFT

[Shahenshah]

WH working overtime to frame the speaker for the failure, ofc Mr. Trump could just not fail so miserably. 

[Shahenshah]

[Lysistrata]

 

.  
In fact one of the main reasons why Obamacare lacks is because they are forcing people to buy into insurance instead of just expanding medicare and cutting out the middleman. Sure it would screw over the health insurance companies, but lets face it; they have been screwing us for a long time.

QFT

 

Quoted for lies. Lets unpack this statement... "The main reason Obamacare sucks is because of the individual mandate instead of expanding Medicare and cutting out the middleman".

 

Medicare is a payroll tax that you pay into all your life so when you turn 65 years old you have some medical insurance when you're too old to work any longer. It's not free, we pay for it, it doesn't cover everything, and it's for Seniors.

 

Obamacare is a law requiring people that earn money to purchase insurance, or pay a tax, in order to pay for their own healthcare, plus everyone else that doesn't make money. An insane attempt to force socialized medicine on American people. This is why it sucks.

 

There is no middleman... the only thing missing in your analogy is you... it's the fault of Obamacare, insurance, Medicare... anything to keep you from having any responsibility to pay for it yourself. Why do you guys think healthcare is free? It's like you're standing in the soup line at the rescue mission demanding the Bone-in Rib Eye, Shrimp Scampi, Broiled Asparagus, and a glass of Dom. Highly trained professionals with high tech equipment dedicate their time and expertise to improve your life, and all anyone thinks about is getting other people to cover the expense. Wow.

[Niels]

Trump: "Do it my way, do it now!"
Congress: "Actually, no ..."
Trump: "Well, this is hard.  I give up."

 

Clearly we are led by someone who truly understands "the art of the deal." /sarcasm

[DarkFox]

There is no middleman...

 Okay have you actually done any research at all or are you just saying what you feel now?

[Lysistrata]

 

There is no middleman...

 Okay have you actually done any research at all or are you just saying what you feel now?

 

I was saying there was no middleman in what you were saying... you talked about Obamacare, Insurance, and Medicare, and said nothing about the responsibility of the primary individual that needs and benefits from the service provided. The only way to cut out the middleman is for the primary individual to crack open a checkbook, or flip out the plastic, and pay for it.

 

Insurance is not intended to be a cheap way for other people to pay for your care... it's a pool of like minded individuals paying into an account that is used to care for them if they get sick. If you don't pay into it, and then want to start paying into it after you get sick... you will not be allowed in the pool. It's an investment in your future, not a quick way to get out of paying for your current problem. Obamacare attempts to change insurance into Universal Healthcare. It's failed because insurance companies have refused to carry the debt. I'm sure they hate what has happened to their customers, and what they have had to do to comply with the failing law.

 

There are 2 ways to fix things. Either make everyone involved in the healthcare industry a Federal employee, or let it go. Federal employees mean salary cuts, high taxes, limited care, and research and development is a thing of the past. Letting it go means removing all government regulations and restrictions, and allowing the healthcare business to flourish. Take your pick.

[onbekende]

So Lys is mainly complaining about government programs being insufficient cause they lack proper funds and leadership. Next up he demands government does nothing while certain groups get richer for being rich.

 

classy.

 

 

 

The ACA is the status quo. I do not support it. Your friends in Congress should have supported Ryan's plan if they wanted to keep the ACA, because it would have fixed the ACA, and it would have been all the Republican's fault. All they had to do then was kill Stage 2 and 3, and boom, it's fixed... but they couldn't do anything that looked like they were supporting a Republican bill. Democrats have never been known for thinking ahead.

 

 

The Republicans had 7 years to get some plan into the works when the enevitable gov-switch came, who are you blaming they can't think ahead? The guys just had their campaighn slogans noted down into "a bill", what happended in those 7 years of sidelined angered opposition?

 

Now you start chiming about bi-partisan support, when before half the statements were "lets repeal ACA!", offcourse the Dems won't sit on your table to discuss the finer points (heck was there even a table used once?). Did the Dems ever complain about bi-partisan support when they tried taking all your guns? >_>

 

***

 

PS. I hear the GOP is angry at Mattis for picking carreer (military) men/woman for his Dep of Defence picks/vacancies instead of GOP affiliates. Guess only 1 fellow has the power to pull his own in, into the swamp that is . Remind me, howmany cabinet/senior staff positions could be shown to be "GOP-affilate"? Top of my head I recall Pence/Priebus/Chao/Perry, probably missed a few but I thing alot others were non-political ones (and not many with a relevant background either).

[Lysistrata]

So Lys is mainly complaining about government programs being insufficient cause they lack proper funds and leadership. Next up he demands government does nothing while certain groups get richer for being rich.

 

classy.

 

Greetings my Belgian friend! I do not complain about government programs lacking proper funds and leadership. I will continue to complain about the existence of government programs that continue to drive our country further into debt, but still are incapable of solving the problems Progressives created the programs to solve. For over 100 years Progressives have been banging the drum about how rich people are holding the masses back from relief of every problem they have, when it's obvious that throwing more money at the sky does not turn it green. It is high time to learn that rich people make the country richer. They employ everyone, and some of them have the salt to become rich themselves, and continue the cycle. If everyone is poor, then no one is rich. Leave the money alone and it will work for everyone. It always has.

 

 

The ACA is the status quo. I do not support it. Your friends in Congress should have supported Ryan's plan if they wanted to keep the ACA, because it would have fixed the ACA, and it would have been all the Republican's fault. All they had to do then was kill Stage 2 and 3, and boom, it's fixed... but they couldn't do anything that looked like they were supporting a Republican bill. Democrats have never been known for thinking ahead.

 

 

The Republicans had 7 years to get some plan into the works when the enevitable gov-switch came, who are you blaming they can't think ahead? The guys just had their campaighn slogans noted down into "a bill", what happended in those 7 years of sidelined angered opposition?

 

Now you start chiming about bi-partisan support, when before half the statements were "lets repeal ACA!", offcourse the Dems won't sit on your table to discuss the finer points (heck was there even a table used once?). Did the Dems ever complain about bi-partisan support when they tried taking all your guns? >_>

Republicans ran in 2010 to repeal the ACA and said "Give us the House and we'll do it" ...We gave them the House.

Republicans ran in 2014 to repeal the ACA and said "Give us the Senate and we'll do it" ...We gave them the Senate.

Republicans ran in 2016 to repeal the ACA and said "Give us the President and we'll do it" ...We gave them the President.

They gave us an ACA fix with a promise to repeal the ACA... We said no, that's not good enough.

 

Rand Paul has never lied to me... not once since I helped him get elected to the US Senate. I believe Rand Paul on the ACA.

Brussels has no skin in this game, and no say in this debate... we'll handle this one my friend.

***

 

PS. I hear the GOP is angry at Mattis for picking carreer (military) men/woman for his Dep of Defence picks/vacancies instead of GOP affiliates. Guess only 1 fellow has the power to pull his own in, into the swamp that is . Remind me, howmany cabinet/senior staff positions could be shown to be "GOP-affilate"? Top of my head I recall Pence/Priebus/Chao/Perry, probably missed a few but I thing alot others were non-political ones (and not many with a relevant background either).

Mattis can hire anyone he wants... I'm GOP, and he hasn't ever lied to me either. I have complete confidence in his leadership. When Trump talked about "draining the swamp"... he was talking about Politicians and Lobbyists... not Billionaires and Generals. He's done a fantastic job.

[DarkFox]

What I was trying to say if I didn't come off clearly is; I want a universal healthcare that doesn't categorize people and treats everyone exactly the same regardless of age, race, and wealth. Charging everyone in taxes the same percentage across the board and not having the insurance companies involved since they skim heavily. That of course is a super simplified version, but I believe it would be a good goal to work towards.

[Lysistrata]

What I was trying to say if I didn't come off clearly is; I want a universal healthcare that doesn't categorize people and treats everyone exactly the same regardless of age, race, and wealth. Charging everyone in taxes the same percentage across the board and not having the insurance companies involved since they skim heavily. That of course is a super simplified version, but I believe it would be a good goal to work towards.

Hmmm... reminds me of an old Steely Dan song I listened to when I was a teenager, until I wore the record out. I have the CD now but I haven't listened to it in a few years... it goes like this:

"I heard it was you... talkin' 'bout a world where all is free... it just couldn't be... and only a fool would say that"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06a19-S77F4

Taking care of your medical needs takes time and knowledge from people that like very much to stick their own price tag on their talent. What you want is socialized healthcare, and to supply that to 320 million people would not be possible. We don't have a convenience store... like a Starbucks... on every corner handing out PhD's for $5 a shot. How do you think Doctors and Surgeons will feel when the law is signed by the President that they can't have a private practice anymore? We would then have a medical crisis on our hands. You also can't have a little bit of Communism. As soon as healthcare is a right, then you will see these creatures screaming for food, and houses, and transportation, and every other service that costs money. It's the road to ruin my friend. On paper you can create a cashless society where everything is free, and everybody is just fine with it... but in the real world you would be drawn and quartered in the street... real medieval like. No one wants that to happen.

[Fox Fire]

OK I'm just going to throw this out there a second time and be more blunt, and direct it directly at people I was implicatingly directing at..... 

Lys! What do you think of the Swiss system and do you think it could work (even if you personally didn't really like it) in the US?

[Lysistrata]

OK I'm just going to throw this out there a second time and be more blunt, and direct it directly at people I was implicatingly directing at..... 

Lys! What do you think of the Swiss system and do you think it could work (even if you personally didn't really like it) in the US?

Sorry Foxy, I got derailed with Steely Dan. I'm not familiar at all with how Switzerland does things. I do know you have to be wealthy to live there, and there is only about 8 million wealthy people living there. My guess is they are probably doing well... because they have all the money from all over the world stashed in their banks. I have also heard that every citizen is armed... like with an assault rifle. They are serious about repelling invasion. They make great chocolate... and it's cold there. That's all I know.

[DeathMerchant]

 

I have also heard that every citizen is armed... like with an assault rifle.

And I hear crimes committed with firearms are practically non existent in Switzerland! Must have something to do with social conditions. A culture that encourages responsibility + good firearms education goes a long way.

 

Contrary to what the media wants us to believe, in the US, only 2 homicides have occurred with legally registered machine guns since 1934. One of which was committed by a police officer! Kind of blows a gaping hole into the argument that responsible/legally abiding firearm owners can't be trusted with NFA weapons.

[Fox Fire]

Actually, Switzerland has a low murder rate, but a high gun crime rate when compared to other European countries. 

They do a conscription/militia thing there where you're basically part of a self defense militia until you're 30. They give you a firearm to keep at home and then allow you to keep it after service if you apply for a permit. Nobody really knows how many people own guns in Switzerland though. 

[DeathMerchant]

Actually, Switzerland has a low murder rate, but a high gun crime rate when compared to other European countries. 

They do a conscription/militia thing there where you're basically part of a self defense militia until you're 30. They give you a firearm to keep at home and then allow you to keep it after service if you apply for a permit. Nobody really knows how many people own guns in Switzerland though. 

Interesting, I never knew Switzerland doesn't have official statistics on firearms ownership. Or if they do its not publicly known. Wikipedia mentions its 45.7 firearms per 100 residents, but then notes estimates are varied.

 

Do you have any statistics/sources for European country gun crime rates? Every source I have seen includes suicides as well as firearm deaths not crime related. So obviously the sources I am looking at are incorrect for drawing correct data.

[Fox Fire]

Do you have any statistics/sources for European country gun crime rates? Every source I have seen includes suicides as well as firearm deaths not crime related. So obviously the sources I am looking at are incorrect for drawing correct data.

Off the top of my head, no, other than Wikipedia. There's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

It makes sense that more guns would be used for crime in nations that have relaxed gun laws. But I also know that relaxed gun laws do not mean higher murder rates. Russia for example makes the US look pretty peaceful when it comes to murder. Even with their strict laws. 

[DeathMerchant]

 

Do you have any statistics/sources for European country gun crime rates? Every source I have seen includes suicides as well as firearm deaths not crime related. So obviously the sources I am looking at are incorrect for drawing correct data.

Off the top of my head, no, other than Wikipedia. There's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

That is one of the lists I've seen. Its hard finding raw data, most sites compile everything into one broad category.