The US Mid-Term Election Thread

[Tsukiyumi]

All of that makes perfect sense, but I for one fail to see how health care is a "left" issue. The only way I can see that being the case is, again, rich folks who don't like helping people with the resources they've been given.

Anyone who told me in person that my mom dying because we were too poor to afford to see a doctor is "the way things should be" would very shortly need a hearse for themselves.

[BigJKU316]

All of that makes perfect sense, but I for one fail to see how health care is a "left" issue. The only way I can see that being the case is, again, rich folks who don't like helping people with the resources they've been given.

Anyone who told me in person that my mom dying because we were too poor to afford to see a doctor is "the way things should be" would very shortly need a hearse for themselves.

I think it would be far to harsh to say that is the way it should be but it is also overly simply to say that it is just rich people not wanting to help others with their resources. There are a lot of considerations that people are taking in when they decide to turn something over to the government. I don't think it is just as simple as saying turn healthcare over to the government and provide it to everyone. There are a lot of inbuilt portions of the system as it stands now that it is not really fair to just tear down overnight.

[Tsukiyumi]

I think it would be far to harsh to say that is the way it should be but it is also overly simply to say that it is just rich people not wanting to help others with their resources.

Seems to be the standard argument. "If they're too lazy to work, why should I pay to help them?" As idiotic as that argument is (due to disabilities, circumstances, and the criteria of actually getting help in this country), that's the one the Glenn Becks and O'Reillys keep pushing. I know not all Republicans/conservatives believe that, and not all even listen to those greedy f*cktards, but a lot do, and I've heard identical arguments coming from Republican politicians.

There are a lot of considerations that people are taking in when they decide to turn something over to the government.

Right-wing propaganda aside, our fellow forum members on here from the UK and Canada seem to find their health care systems satisfactory. I don't see why it couldn't work here. I know for a fact that before deregulation of, well, almost everything, companies in this country couldn't get away with screwing consumers as easily as they have been in the last decade.

I don't think it is just as simple as saying turn healthcare over to the government and provide it to everyone. There are a lot of inbuilt portions of the system as it stands now that it is not really fair to just tear down overnight.

I agree. This "overhaul" should've been done 30 years ago, not just starting in 2010.

To be clear, I just don't think certain things should be run like they're a business. Military, police, fire department, and health care being the most obvious.

[BigJKU316]

There are pluses and minuses to both systems. I know that I fall into the "have" category but there are certain things I can and have had done I could not get accomplished in a government run system. My wife has a bad back, which is not emergency level but can keep her from walking. We have gotten it diagnosed in the morning, had an MRI the same morning and gotten the correct minor surgery to get it fixed the same day. That is not generally something that one can get accomplished in Canada or the UK as the system is set up with cost controls in place that can't support the number of MRI machines that the US system, which is more expensive does.

That is the real problem. You are not just asking the rich to pay for something. You are asking a lot of people to give up a standard of health care to which they have become used to because you can't have a national HC system with things like on demand MRI's. I don't have a problem with having a debate nationally on the issue but it needs to be a honest one rather than the one Obama wished to have where he basically said that no one would see a negative impact from changes and cost would not go up. That is impossible. Be honest about what you are doing and the cost to everyone then we can decide what to do.

Try selling the country a load of crap that even your basic ECON 101 student knows is BS (you can't raise demand and not have prices rise as well without sacrificing quality) and they are going to throw up on it like they did here. The attempt to sell that line of crap set back any move towards more nationalized health care a long time.

[Mikey]

I most certainly don't fall into the "have" category, but I have the benefit of a CBA which includes killer health benefits. Considering that, when I see the rigamarole I go through, I become terrified for the people with more typical HMO's let alone the uninsured.

Ex.: I was at the opthalmologist last week - as a diabetic I have to get a retinal exam yearly. Well, they had to charge me in advance for the refraction, in addition to my co-pay, because of the frequency with which insurers reject a refraction claim. Well, after all sorts of tests (I had my head in so many different brackets and braces that I was ready to confess my heresy,) the doctor told me that she would have to fight tooth and nail to get my optic nerve scans covered - even though such an exam was absolutely 100% indicated by the fact that my eye pressure (based on a more typical test) was borderline glaucomous. Of course, after all that I had to take my prescription to an optician across town because my vision coverage doesn't fly at the optician's desk at the eye doctor.

Of course, like JKU says, while such red tape can be avoided with a nationalized plan - there are definite disadvantages as well. Perhaps not in single-payer systems like Canada or the UKoGBaNI; but doctors who have worked on the continent have told me that while there is single-point full-service health care available without an out-of-pocket, people can be made to wait until the following fiscal year even for time-sensitive treatments or diagnostics.

[Tsukiyumi]

...You are asking a lot of people to give up a standard of health care to which they have become used to...

So that people who otherwise wouldn't get any health care at all can be helped, yes. What's unreasonable about that? Things would be more inconvenient for some people so that other people's lives can be saved, and I fail to see the problem.

If a person can help, and they choose not to, it's plain evil, in my opinion.

It'd be like me seeing a person stuck in a burning BMW and deciding I don't feel like getting my eyebrows singed off helping some rich guy.

I know the argument that you can't regulate charity, but we can regulate what our tax dollars are spent on; I'd much rather have my money going to help sick people than to bail out banks and line CEOs pockets.

Mikey - I recall either Ian or GK saying that things like heart attacks and life-threatening illness are taken care of quickly. I may be misremembering, though.

[Mikey]

Indeed, and I recall saying that the anecdotal evidence indicates that what I mentioned seems to be more true of continental-type nationalized systems rather than UKoGBaNI or Canuck single-payer systems.

[Tsukiyumi]

Ah. I appear to have missed that word.

Must be my terrible eyesight.

[Reliant121]

I cannot really comment because being a child I have medical priority but I have always had support no matter what the condition is. As have parents when they bugger themselves up. I can't see where the UK system suffers from lesser quality. apart from waiting times, that I can possibly see. But if it's serious enough, such as when I had Kawasaki's disease around 4 (I can just remember that's about when you begin to properly remember stuff) I was treated as soon as the prerequisite materials where in (a full blood and gamma globulin transfusion, as you sort or have to purge the entire system of bad blood, almost like purging a tank of diesel). Whenever my parents have needed expensive but not critical treatment they've got it there and then. Admittedly with long waiting times.

However, I believe the cost and the radical changes to the system to effect the NHS was inordinately expensive and took forever to get going.

[Captain Seafort]

There are pluses and minuses to both systems. I know that I fall into the "have" category but there are certain things I can and have had done I could not get accomplished in a government run system. My wife has a bad back, which is not emergency level but can keep her from walking. We have gotten it diagnosed in the morning, had an MRI the same morning and gotten the correct minor surgery to get it fixed the same day.

You probably could get that done in the UK, if you were willing to pay through the nose for it. Just because we've got the NHS (and the vast majority of the population rely on it) doesn't mean we don't have private health care as well.

That is not generally something that one can get accomplished in Canada or the UK as the system is set up with cost controls in place that can't support the number of MRI machines that the US system, which is more expensive does.

Indeed, but as Tsu says there are priorities to set, and ultimately the inconvenience of a bad back plays second fiddle to saving lives. That doesn't mean that such ailments (and similar things like hip replacements, etc) don't get fixed, it simply means you have to wait your turn.