Tens of million of Obama's "adult children" taking to the streets rioting because apparently they've lost sight of reality due to a new health care law? Really?

That's when America goes bankrupt and people lose their entitlements. Like what is happening with Greece.

Tens of million of Obama's "adult children" taking to the streets rioting because apparently they've lost sight of reality due to a new health care law? Really?

That's when America goes bankrupt and people lose their entitlements. Like what is happening with Greece.

 

Greece's financial woes are the result of a lot of factors and institutional problems that extend far beyond anything to do with its healthcare system that frankly aren't present in the US.

 

But alternatively we could just continue to cover ourselves in layers and layers of false arguments whenever we hear anything that even has the tiniest whiff of socialism, like the entirety of mainstream American politics has ever since the Cold War. Maybe the proponents will eventually get bored and go away.

If you criticise Obamacare for its alleged attack on freedom, then you may as well propose letting drivers go around without insurance on their cars. In both cases, a decision has been made for somebody that because there is a significant risk, there should be measures in place to mitigate any consequences. This is common sense, how you fund it (private vs public expenditure) is a different matter altogether. To relate Obamacare to any meaningful debate on freedom is desperation, and it's frankly emotional blackmail as far as the American psyche towards the word "freedom" is concerned.

I feel like whoever wins, Americans lose. There needs to be an overhaul of the system in order to prevent corporations from buying out your representatives.

I feel like whoever wins, Americans lose. There needs to be an overhaul of the system in order to prevent corporations from buying out your representatives.

I don't understand what corporations have to do with anything. If Obamacare goes through then corporations that have health care plans for their employees will be saving money, which means they'll either increase wages, hire more people, put more funds towards R&D so we can have better products, pocket the extra cash for themselves, or any combination of those 4 things. If it doesn't go through then they'll just keep providing health care plans like normal.

I think he's just talking about American politics in general.

If you criticise Obamacare for its alleged attack on freedom, then you may as well propose letting drivers go around without insurance on their cars. In both cases, a decision has been made for somebody that because there is a significant risk, there should be measures in place to mitigate any consequences. This is common sense, how you fund it (private vs public expenditure) is a different matter altogether. To relate Obamacare to any meaningful debate on freedom is desperation, and it's frankly emotional blackmail as far as the American psyche towards the word "freedom" is concerned.

 

The health insurance tax is unavoidable. By being alive and American, you must buy health insurance or pay a tax. Auto insurance is avoidable. By not having a car or carrying a license, you don't have to have auto insurance.

 

Pretty much the first statement you'll find in any driver's education book is that "Driving is a privilege, not a right." In order to gain the privilege to drive a car in a state, you must insure others from the damage you might cause them. Hopefully you can understand why auto insurance is different than health insurance negotiated group plans.

You could very simply argue that being alive is a privilege, not a right. What is a privilege and what is a right could simply be defined as by what you need to pay tax for.

 

More accurate perhaps would be to say that to be a US citizen is a privilege, rather than a right, which in a way it is.

You could very simply argue that being alive is a privilege, not a right.

That's an absurd argument to make. Unless you actually believe it, then it's horrifying.

The problem with obamacare is that it's half-assed. They should choose either purely public or purely private, and not wallow in the middle

You could very simply argue that being alive is a privilege, not a right.

That's an absurd argument to make. Unless you actually believe it, then it's horrifying.

It's absurd, that's why I made the point. Is it any different from your argument? I think not, in principle. Anyway, I amended it to say 'American citizen' instead of 'alive' which probably suits the point better.

The problem with obamacare is that it's half-assed. They should choose either purely public or purely private, and not wallow in the middle

Obamacare is designed to socialize healthcare. They're playing the long game. It won't do it immediately, just inevitably (otherwise there would have been too much push-back from the American people). It'll make it "cheaper" for individuals and companies to rely on the government while hiding the true cost of care, and it will bankrupt insurance companies and other intermediaries.

 

There's about twenty different things Obama could have put in Obamacare that would've contained costs better, but somehow he missed it in its 2700 pages.

Well, looks like life will suck until the point your healthcare is entirely socialized, at which point things will be much better (provided the money is managed responsibly).

Someone already said that they don't like foreigners talking about US healthcare, so read into this what you will from a Brit...

 

Healthcare has never been something that I ever worried about. None of my friends talk about it. You get ill, you go see a doctor or you go to the hospital, and that's it. Americans talk about co-pays and deductibles and jobs with health insurance and pre-existing conditions and medicare and medicaid and going bankrupt... and it just seems like a huge headache to me. I find it bizarre that Americans apparently like this.

 

There are plenty of stats which say that Americans pay twice as much for their health coverage, and overall they have a lower quality of care.

 

Although... Americans pay such high prices that it subsidizes health research. So you guys pay thousands of dollars for a vaccine that the rest of the world gets for a few hundred. So keep up the good work: world socialized medicine, subsidized by the good ol' USA.

There are plenty of stats which say that Americans pay twice as much for their health coverage, and overall they have a lower quality of care.

Our care sucks so bad that wealthy foreigners in socialized healthcare nations come over here for treatment.

Key word "wealthy".

Our care sucks so bad that wealthy foreigners in socialized healthcare nations come over here for specialized treatment.

 

If Iraq had a really expensive cure for cancer, I'd bet wealthy foreigners would go there too. That doesn't mean the average population benefits from the system.

There are plenty of stats which say that Americans pay twice as much for their health coverage, and overall they have a lower quality of care.

Our care sucks so bad that wealthy foreigners in socialized healthcare nations come over here for treatment.

While most of the American populace would kill to come over to Europe or Canda for socialised healthcare. American good healthcare is great, but for most of the country it's far worse than other rich countries (hence the lower life expectancy by a few years - the fat people myth is irrelevant now that Europe is as fat as the US and yet Europeans seem somehow to be living longer).

There are plenty of stats which say that Americans pay twice as much for their health coverage, and overall they have a lower quality of care.

Our care sucks so bad that wealthy foreigners in socialized healthcare nations come over here for treatment.

So it's fine for a few wealthy individuals to experience excellent standards of healthcare, while the poorer majority have to make do with substandard healthcare compared to other developed countries, even though the US in terms of GDP is far wealthier compared to other 'wealthy' countries?

 

You can sling the term 'tax' around like poison if you really want to--once again, it's emotional blackmail rather than a rational argument--but at least it's supposed to be progressive to society as a whole, not just the select few that already benefit most from that society.

Very good point about the use of the word 'tax' by the American right. It's always used in an emotionally charged rather than a sensible way, and the greatest crime of all is that they get away with it on Fox etc.

Very good point about the use of the word 'tax' by the American right. It's always used in an emotionally charged rather than a sensible way, and the greatest crime of all is that they get away with it on Fox etc.

I use the word tax because that's the only way the individual mandate is legal. The other arguments (namely the commerce clause) were specifically found unconstitutional. Be my guest, argue that it isn't a tax. Maybe you'll do us all a favor and get it thrown out.

 

Anyhow, you can't call the US health care system the 34th best in the world for quality when there are destination hospitals here that others forgo their own "free" systems so they can get a visa, fly here, and be able to pay for better treatment.

I don't think that "quality" applies to the best possible healthcare the US can provide, but rather the average healthcare they provide, which is much more relevant.

While most of the American populace would kill to come over to Europe or Canda for socialised healthcare. American good healthcare is great, but for most of the country it's far worse than other rich countries (hence the lower life expectancy by a few years - the fat people myth is irrelevant now that Europe is as fat as the US and yet Europeans seem somehow to be living longer).

Life expectancy isn't a good way of comparing health care systems.

 

There's a bunch of confounding factors that are irrelevant when comparing health care systems, for instance the U.S. yearly fatality rate for motor vehicles is more than 3 times that than the U.K. Or the criteria behind a "live birth" in the U.S. is much looser than that of any other country. A baby can be born 6 weeks early, blue in the face and barely be above room temperature and the U.S. would still call it a live birth, where other countries wouldn't even consider any baby born 2 weeks premature or earlier.

 

I don't think that "quality" applies to the best possible healthcare the US can provide, but rather the average healthcare they provide, which is much more relevant.

The average 5 year survival rate of cancer in the U.S. is #1 compared to other countries. The average life expectancy when factoring out fatal accidents for the U.S. is #1 compared to other countries.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/

Well you can't just not take into account fatal accidents, that's a part of triage / emergency room medicine which is certainly part of a nation's overall healthcare. The fact that the US has more fatal accidents should be balanced by the fact that we have a greater population, right?

Rate, not number. :wall:

It's like 12 per 100,000 versus 4 per 100,000.

 

E:

Also, what counts as health care? Does it include elective surgeries like breast implants or botox treatments? Do you include things like acne medicine or spa treatments? These are things people with disposable income will buy where other countries can't afford x-ray machines.

Well you can't just not take into account fatal accidents, that's a part of triage / emergency room medicine which is certainly part of a nation's overall healthcare. The fact that the US has more fatal accidents should be balanced by the fact that we have a greater population, right?

Rate, not number. :wall:

It's like 12 per 100,000 versus 4 per 100,000.

 

E:

Also, what counts as health care? Does it include elective surgeries like breast implants or botox treatments? Do you include things like acne medicine or spa treatments? These are things people with disposable income will buy where other countries can't afford x-ray machines.

 

Luckily my mother is a retired NHS nurse, so I posed to her your questions: Acne treatments, yes, but only for chronic cases that can lead to complications. Spa treatments, no. Breast implants, only for the purpose of restructuring after a mastectomy (usually performed as a treatment for breast cancer). Botox, yes, but not for cosmetic purposes, there are some medical conditions that can be treated with the compound.

 

Basically, if you want bigger breasts, you'll still need to go private in the UK.