• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What would you give up for universal healthcare?

Caper said:
but what if you can only give up one?.... Which one would u choose?
Click to expand...

As for me, I'd be happy to see our current military involvements in Brigadoon and Ruritania come to an end. Closing the U.S. air base in Zenda alone would save several tens of billions of dollars per year.
 
When I moved from the Midwest US to Canada, what struck me about the Canadian system was not so much the system itself, but the attitude about health care among Canadians.
  • Deny someone basic health care simply because he can't pay? Unthinkable!
  • Have a citizen lose everything he owns--his house, his car, his livelihood, his dignity--in an effort to pay medical bills, many of which might not be his fault? Unthinkable!
  • Have a profit-based health care system, in which making money takes precedence over actually caring for health? Unthinkable!
  • Millions of people flooding the court system to litigate about who will pay medical bills (with trial lawyers taking a huge chunk of this money)? Unthinkable!
I occasionally run into Canadians who are either uninformed or in total denial about how things work in the US (and I use the term "work" loosely). You mean there's actually a country on Earth where such horrors could and do happen??

There are some rare horror stories of Canadians who get saddled with huge medical bills and get financially wiped out thereby. In many of these cases, the Canadians were visiting the USA when they got sick or injured. Wham! Just like that, they're ruined! (Travel insurance is available to protect people against this sort of thing, but sometimes people forget, or they only plan to be in the States for a few hours....)
 
Travis said:
On MSNBC this morning two Senators said that their constituents indicate they believe they will have to endure slightly longer lines in hospitals and other medical facilities if the currently uninsured 40 million Americans are given coverage through subsidized policies. And because of that they oppose it and have vowed to vote against all attempts at health care reform.

Is this something you worry about? Are you willing to tell forty million of your fellow citizens to just "**** off and die" if they get turned down because of pre-existing conditions because you might have to wait a bit longer if everyone is covered?

Assuming it's true is that something you could live with?

What else would you, personally, be willing to give up for a country where everyone has health insurance?
Click to expand...

Agreed. That would have to be the most morally bankrupt reason to oppose universal healthcare.

I don't know what exactly I'd be losing with universal healthcare.
 
Darat said:
Interestingly because you do have "universal healthcare" for your military personal we've seen a huge improvement in some medical treatments as a result of the USA getting embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example the area of prosthetics and limb damage repair.
Click to expand...

Not to mention concussion and blunt force trauma injuries (which is what projectile weapons and high order detonations tend to become with improved protective gear).
 
Nothing. UHC is a pipe dream...if it does happen...well, get in the medical tourism bisiness early & you might be a millionaire before long.
 
I am tempted to give a glib reply to the OP like: "unnecessary,and expensive foreign military adventurism", but that isn't fair to the question. As that would not be something I am "giving up"- since i see it as detrimental to our society anyway.

In the spirit of compromise, I would consider giving up compulsory workers' compensation insurance, in favor of a "single payer" health care system.
 
Neally said:
The one I quoted you on.
Click to expand...

You talked about forty million people dying. I said that the opposition to UHC has a "**** off and die" attitude.

Jarlaxle said:
Nothing. UHC is a pipe dream...if it does happen...well, get in the medical tourism bisiness early & you might be a millionaire before long.
Click to expand...

Why is it a dream?
What are you implying regarding medical tourism?
 
Trakar said:
Dessi said:
...With SS going bust and no chance in hell that someone my age will ever get a return on their investment,...
Click to expand...
Got evidence that compellingly supports this assertion?
Click to expand...
2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees:
Annual cost exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and is projected to continue to be larger throughout the remainder of the 75-year valuation period. Nevertheless, from 2010 through 2022, total trust fund income, including interest income, is more than is necessary to cover costs, so trust fund assets will continue to grow during that time period. Beginning in 2023, trust fund assets will diminish until they become exhausted in 2036. Non-interest income is projected to be sufficient to support expenditures at a level of 77 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2036, and then to decline to 74 percent of scheduled benefits in 2085.

. . .

socialsecurityincomeles.png


Another important way to look at Social Security’s future is to view its annual cost and non-interest income as a share of U.S. economic output. Figure II.D5 shows that Social Security’s cost as a percentage of GDP is projected to continue growing from 4.4 percent in 2008 to about 6.2 percent in 2035, then to decline to 6.0 percent by 2050, and to remain between 5.9 and 6.0 percent through 2085. As the economy recovers, Social Security’s noninterest income, which reflects scheduled tax rates, is projected to increase from its current level of about 4.5 percent of GDP to about 4.9 percent of GDP for 2020. Thereafter, non-interest income as a percent of GDP declines gradually, until it reaches about 4.6 percent by 2085. Future non-interest income declines generally in relation to GDP because the share of employee compensation provided in fringe benefits is projected to increase gradually, which will make wages a declining share of GDP.

. . .

socialsecuritycostandno.png


Figures II.D2, II.D4, and II.D5 show that the program’s financial condition is worsening at the end of the projection period. Trends in annual balances and cumulative values toward the end of the 75-year period provide an indication of the program’s ability to maintain solvency beyond 75 years. Consideration of summary measures alone for a 75-year period can lead to incorrect perceptions and to policy prescriptions that do not achieve sustainable solvency. Summary measures for a time period that extends over the infinite horizon are also included in this report. These measures provide an additional indication of Social Security’s very long-run financial condition, but are subject to much greater uncertainty. These calculations show that extending the horizon beyond 75 years increases the unfunded obligation. Over the infinite horizon, the shortfall (unfunded obligation) amounts to $17.9 trillion in present value, 3.6 percent of future taxable payroll, or 1.2 percent of future GDP. The summarized shortfalls for the 75-year period and the infinite horizon both reflect annual shortfalls only for years after trust fund exhaustion. The annual shortfalls after trust fund exhaustion rise slowly and reflect increases in life expectancy after 2036. The summarized shortfalls for the 75-year period, as percentages of taxable payroll and GDP, are lower than those for the infinite horizon principally because only about two-thirds of the years in the 75-year period have unfunded annual shortfalls.

. . .

If no substantial action is taken for several years, then changes necessary to maintain Social Security solvency will be concentrated on fewer years and fewer generations. This possible outcome can be seen by examining the large and sudden changes that would be required if action were deferred until the combined trust funds become exhausted in 2036. [Author suggests two possible actions to handle deficits, raise payroll taxes and decrease benefits].

Based on the assumption of continued increase in the average age of the population after the 75-year period (due to expected improvement in life expectancy), Social Security’s annual cost will very likely continue to grow faster than non-interest income after 2085. As a result, ensuring solvency of the system beyond 2085 would likely require further changes beyond those expected to be needed through 2085.
Click to expand...

Apologies for the wall of text, but there's a real, non-partisan problem that current tax levels can't keep up with social security benefits.
 
Wowsers, I did not realize this:

Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883
Click to expand...
 
Jarlaxle said:
Nothing. UHC is a pipe dream...if it does happen...well, get in the medical tourism bisiness early & you might be a millionaire before long.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, my parents have enjoyed their tax-payer subsidized TRICARE for 30+ years.
 
I would be willing to give up my current Socialized Medicine Scheme (300 million citizens pay for the health care for about 2 million beneficiaries) provided I would not simultaniously pay more for heath care AND wait longer for treatment AND suddenly not have some treatments available to me that are currently available.

What can I say...... I'm a team player.
 
sarge said:
I would be willing to give up my current Socialized Medicine Scheme (300 million citizens pay for the health care for about 2 million beneficiaries) provided I would not simultaniously pay more for heath care AND wait longer for treatment AND suddenly not have some treatments available to me that are currently available.

What can I say...... I'm a team player.
Click to expand...

Hang on a moment - what do you mean "wait longer" - there are no waiting times at all in the USA health care system, anyone 24/7 can instantly get whatever medical treatment they want..... ;)
 
Travis said:
You talked about forty million people dying. I said that the opposition to UHC has a "**** off and die" attitude.
Click to expand...
No, you said, "Are you willing to tell forty million of your fellow citizens to just "**** off and die" then you said, "Assuming it's true is that something you could live with?"

Again, that assumption is wrong for the reasons I stated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom