Rationing Health Care - it's a lie!

He's not even making sense. Cuba is using Cuba as a facade?

I think the word he's struggling for is "Havana", but actually I'm guessing.

As I suspect NWO Sentryman is.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Now the thing is, I've just recently watched Sicko
Click to expand...

Ah, that explains a lot. That coupled with your socialist views, it's all clear now. You think the film is gospel. It's not.

Everyone is the US is not being pissed on by insurance companies. In fact most people are very very happy with what they have.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
The other contrast which Moore didn't labour, and yet which I find very significant, is that the NHS reacts to its failings. We, collectively, own the system, and we have put it in place with the object of delivering healthcare. If healthcare is not delivered to people who need it, we get cross. We make a big fuss. This can all be read in the newspapers and the enquiries and the published statistics. Even Americans can read all about it. The net result, however, is that failings are addressed, waiting times get shorter, and more drugs are made available to patients.

Compare this to the US system. I've yet to hear of any US insurance company or HMO actively working to help the people it has turned down for insurance get healthcare, or to help the insured people it has decided to retroactively uninsure once they developed an expensive condition because of a small mistake on their application form, or to help the people only entitled to one surgical intervention in a year who actually need two.
Click to expand...

So when the NHS screws up, the public gets mad and applies pressure to force changes. And you contrast this with insurance companies not proactively helping people. You're comparing apples and oranges.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
Socialism does bring that hell. Castro killed 70000 people. Stalin killed 50 million. Mao killed 80 million.
Click to expand...

Anyone who offers comments like the above are amply demonstrating that their opposition to the concept of a universal health care system is not rooted in facts, it's not rooted evidence and data, it's not rooted in calm, rational analysis. No, it's rooted entirely and completely in ideology.
 
The Painter said:
Ah, that explains a lot. That coupled with your socialist right wing views, it's all clear now. You think the film is gospel all a load of mince. It's not.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. Now, as we've said before, if you've a problem with Moore's factual accuracy or otherwise then start a thread - but at the moment you're doing no more than shouting "YOU'RE WRONG" without backing it all up
 
The Painter said:
Ah, that explains a lot. That coupled with your socialist views, it's all clear now. You think the film is gospel. It's not.

Everyone is the US is not being pissed on by insurance companies. In fact most people are very very happy with what they have.
Click to expand...


Sweetheart, I'm very well aware that film is not "gospel". It's not even meant to be even-handed. It's meant to be the other side of the coin of the anti-universal-healthcare propaganda, which cherry-picks horror stories from the NHS or Canada and tries to pretend that these represent everybody's experience in these countries.

These horror stories are easy to debunk. Are Moore's so easy?

The point is, most people in Britain, and France, and pretty much all the countries with universal healthcare are also very very happy with what they have. They're even more happy thay they're paying half what Americans are paying. And that they don't have to give their health coverage a second thought it they want to change jobs or set up in business or leave the workforce. And that they don't have a bureaucrat standing between them and their doctor. And for lots of other reasons.

You don't want these things, apparently, but none of us can figure out why.

Rolfe.
 
They're even more happy thay they're paying half what Americans are paying.
Click to expand...

My wife and I pay $60 per month. It is top shelf coverage. So by your statement pretty much all the countries with universal health care are paying $15 per month per person. Really?
 
Ziggurat said:
So when the NHS screws up, the public gets mad and applies pressure to force changes. And you contrast this with insurance companies not proactively helping people. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If NHS screws up, they have to answer to the people.

If the private insurers do not screw sick clients, they have to answer to pissed-off shareholders who aren't getting paid enormous usery on their money.

Bet you know how much sympathy I feel toward coupon-clipping maggots with a big health care portfolio.
 
The Painter said:
My wife and I pay $60 per month. It is top shelf coverage. So by your statement pretty much all the countries with universal health care are paying $15 per month per person. Really?
Click to expand...

WHOA! That is about .25% of normal. Care to divulge what company that is?

I think i smell unicorn poo.
 
leftysergeant said:
Exactly. If NHS screws up, they have to answer to the people.

If the private insurers do not screw sick clients, they have to answer to pissed-off shareholders who aren't getting paid enormous usery on their money.
Click to expand...

They also have to answer to their customers, a rather important aspect of markets you seem to have ignored. Because of the dysfunctional tax system, those customers are frequently not the people they insure (but rather their employers), so there's an argument to be made here for decoupling insurance from work. But that's for another time. The fact remains, the comparison was apples to oranges.

Oh, and it's usury, not usery. The spelling mistake is a minor thing, but your inability to distinguish between a loan and an investment isn't.
 
They also have to answer to their customers, a rather important aspect of markets you seem to have ignored.
Click to expand...

Yes, they "answer" to them by dropping them when they get too expensive.
 
kellyb said:
Yes, they "answer" to them by dropping them when they get too expensive.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, generally they don't. Sometimes it happens, but it drives away potential customers when it does. Health insurance businesses can't make money without customers. And for most employer-sponsored plans (which is where most Americans get their health insurance), I'm pretty sure they're contractually prohibited from dropping them.
 
The Painter said:
My wife and I pay $60 per month. It is top shelf coverage. So by your statement pretty much all the countries with universal health care are paying $15 per month per person. Really?
Click to expand...

Is your employer not paying any of your premium for you?
 
Ziggurat said:
Uh, no, generally they don't. Sometimes it happens, but it drives away potential customers when it does. Health insurance businesses can't make money without customers. And for most employer-sponsored plans (which is where most Americans get their health insurance), I'm pretty sure they're contractually prohibited from dropping them.
Click to expand...

They generally drop whole companies at once when one or more participants gets too expensive.
It's a catch-22 where as long as you're not using much healthcare, they'll happily keep you on. It's only when the customer gets expensive that they'll start trying to screw them, and at that point, they don't want your business any more. Your business is not profitable enough for them.
 
I actually don't know what I personally pay. Because it's rolled up with taxes, it feels like I'm not paying, though of course I know I am.

I make £48,000 a year, which is about $80,000.

I pay £700 a month in tax, total. That's $1,170. That's all my tax. (I also pay half of that again in National Insurance payments, but that's supposed to be going towards paying for my pension when I retire. So $1,755 altogether if you like.)

So, Kelly, I'm paying just about what you pay just for healthcare insurance, as my entire tax bill. And I'm not on the breadline, as I imagine you can see.

My wife and I pay $60 per month. It is top shelf coverage.
Click to expand...


I smell unicorn poo as well. I'll let the US citizens challenge you on the veracity of that.

However, I would point out that even if that were all you were paying for healthcare insurance for yourself and your wife (and with all due respect I don't believe you), I would remind you that the US taxpayer pays slightly more than we do to fund just Medicare and Medicaid. Which the US taxpayer can't actually access.

Come on, how much do you actually pay into healthcare, altogether? Including employer contributions and taxes as well as personal contributions. And is the healthcare you'd get for this contribution subsidised by the taxpayer in any way?

Rolfe.
 
kellyb said:
They generally drop whole companies
Click to expand...

That probably happens on occassion, but generally? No, I don't think so. That's a good way to make sure no companies sign up for you in the first place, or leave you for a competitor.
 
Where can I read all about each company's track record in retrospectively cancelling individuals' insurance when they develop a big-ticket problem, and in causing trouble for companies when one or more of their employees starts costing a lot?

I mean, if prospective customers can use that information when making choices about which company to patronise, the information must be accessible somewhere, right?

Unless they're all much the same, and happy for it to stay that way, I suppose....

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom