Post by Vincenzo Beretta Post by Giftzwerg
Here's the difference between you and me. I understand that modern
medical tests and treatments are *tremendously* expensive
Ah, but I know that. Part of my tax money is pooled and then used to pay
for treatments when someone needs them.
- Subtracting money from the common pool is not called "making a legit
profit" but "unlawful appropriation of public money" and thus prosecuted
- I can pick up the phone, go to the hospital, be (hopefully) cured and
return home. No worries about "pre-existing conditions", "the insurance
will pay for X but not for Y", "creative deductibles", various. Oh, and
the ambulance is paid for.
- I can ***CHOOSE*** (a marketing buzzword, I understand, in the States)
to ask for what I feel being a more qualified opinion - let's say in the
States - paying it out of my pocket. I still get the basic check ups, the
medications and maybe even the whole treatment after the problem is
diagnosed paid all by UHC.
- People don't risk bankrupt because of a medical problem. This has two
effects: first a worker is given back to the society (amazingly enough,
that everybody gives, in a general sense, to his country more than he
gets, and that this is the reason why creating a safety net for
health-related problems is a benefit for the country as a whole and not a
charity is something that USAnians do not seem able to grasp); second, no
hospital/doctor/private institution/whatever risks to lose money because
part of the patients went bankrupt thanks to some creative "pre-existing
Some years ago I was unable to work for almost an year, and I had to
undergo some costly treatments. Who paid for them? Me? My father? Our
esteemed PM? In 2007 my father had to undergo some serious surgery. Who
paid for that? Me? My father? Our esteemed PM?
Our esteemed PM recently had surgery - some suggest of a serious kind,
some suggest of the plastic kind. Who paid for it? Himself? Me? My father?
Does anyone care?
This is the whole point of UHC.
Post by Giftzwerg
Here's a clue. You pay the same as I do. The difference being you'd
pay whether you had the tests of treatments or no.
Here is another clue: people fightning against UHC are waging a battle so
that a third party can legally take part of the money needed to cure those
in need and pocket it. And that's it. Meanwhile, the same kind of
corporation that wails against socialism when they are about to see a
source of free money go away, merrily pockets government bailout money
without screaming about how the financial system is about to "go
communist". This is being called by the anti-UHC crowd RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I
guess that one can choose to be stupid, if he really wants.
I know I'm coming late to this, but as an American who lived in Europe for 5
years I think I can point out some facts about the US health care system
that might not be obvious to your average European, especially given the
slanted news coverage I'm sure you've been getting:
1) The whole argument really wasn't about health care itself, but about
HEALTH INSURANCE. In fact, it was about who's pocket was going to be picked
to pay for someone else's health care bills. It was mostly a vast income
redistribution scheme that gave the federal government (and by extension the
party of government, the Marxist/Democrats) the power to pick winners and
losers; to reward their friends (labor unions, minorities, illegal aliens)
and punish their enemies (small business owners). Also, if the government
has the power to choose what health care you get, you tend to try and stay
on the good side of government (i.e. shut up, pay your taxes and do as your
told) and vote for the party of government. In fact, it did almost nothing
to improve people's access to health care procedures. Something that most
Europeans probably don't know is that hospitals in the US cannot deny care
to anyone for lack of insurance or ability to pay. If you are poor and go
to the hospital they will find some program to enroll you in (Medicaid
usually) or work out a plan where you pay a small fraction of the bill and
they pass the rest of the expense on to those of us who have insurance, ~85%
2) The only provisions in the bill that will impact actual HEALTH CARE are
the setting up of the framework for future rationing of health care.
Despite what the denizens of the Marxist/Democratic party claim, there is
stuff in to bill to start setting up "Comparative Effectiveness Research"
which when you catch them in a moment of honesty they admit is the precursor
to the so-called "Death Panels". This research is to set up a system that
will give everyone a life score that will be compiled from your age, weight,
medical history, whether you smoke/smoked, your income, career (Congress
critters get super-duper bonus points!), your party affiliation (only partly
kidding about that), etc. Then every procedure will have a threshold; if
your life score is above this threshold, you get the procedure. If it
doesn't, it's Soylent Green time. The UK is already well advanced in this
process and look at what a nightmare the NHS is.
3) One huge difference between rest of the world and the US is that the rest
of the world isn't saddled with the US Tort system and the hordes of
creatures like John Edwards (hey Ray, weren't you a big supporter of his!)
latched onto the US economy like lampreys on a shark. These creatures add >
30% to the US health care bill through direct tort costs, malpractice
insurance costs and defensive medicine. They also make it hard to root out
fraud and waste in Medicare because every time you go after a huckster the
lawyers come out of the woodwork and make it almost impossible to prosecute
(they claim that the investigators are picking on these poor, old, senile
people who didn't know better) so the government doesn't even pretend to go
after medicare fraud. The Trial lawyers give hundreds of millions of
dollars to Marxist/Democrats every election cycle in campaign contributions,
bribes and kickbacks to keep the scams going so that's why their was no Tort
reform in the health care bill.
4) The 35-40 Million uninsured they talk about is really not that big of a
problem. ~1/3 are young, healthy people who have access to insurance but
rationally choose not to buy it because it is overpriced for them (to
subsidize the rates for oldsters like me) and the expense cuts into their
beer money. ~1/3 are illegal aliens and I'm sorry, but their health care
bills are Mexico's problem, not ours. They aren't covered in the bill
anyway. Most of the rest are already eligible for some other program like
Medicaid or SCHIP. If they have to go to the hospital the first thing
admissions will do will be to sign them up aid (see #1 above). In fact,
when the Marxist/Democrats whine about how it's all for "the children", it's
a total crock since SCHIP covers pretty much all these children already.
People on unemployment get COBRA subsidies so they are covered if they had
insurance when they were laid off. So that leaves a few million people who
honestly can't afford (not doesn't want to pay for it like that wealthy
family from Baltimore that the media hyped a few years ago during the SCHIP
battle) or can't get health insurance because of medical preconditions etc.
These people could be helped with a plan (like the one Rep. Paul Ryan put
forward) for a small fraction of the cost of the Marxist/Democrats $2.5
The so-called Health Care Bill is a crock full of pork, bribes and extension
of power for the Marxist/Democrats and does nothing to improve the health of
Americans. In fact, one of it's main purposes is to hasten the bankruptcy
of the US so as to pave the way for what the Marxist/Democrats consider the
Mother Lode, the V.A.T.
| Jay Schamus
| "Don't rejoice in his defeat, you men.
| For though the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
| The bitch that bore him is in heat again."
| Bertolt Brecht