8 NEED-TO-KNOW FACTS ABOUT The American Health Care Act

[gambit]

Your understanding is wrong.
Medical facilities should be universal and free , be it in any way irrespective of age and economic status.
Be it NHS or German way.

I personally ike German way

Yeah...There is a way to make health care universal and 'free'. It is called 'Communism'.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

No, it is not.

The moment I am responsible to take care of your health, that is the moment I have control over you. As if it is not enough that already any government have some measures of control over you now.

If you want me to take care of your health, I will want to control of what you eat and how you conduct your life. After all, what you take into your body and how you live your life affects your risks of having health issues. If I have to take money from other people to take care of your health issues, it is only right that I should take measures to control cost so that I have to take as little as possible. Smoking ? No. Alcohol ? No. Processed food ? No. And so on...

You see the point ?

Yes, Sounds like Sweden, but not quite correct.
The government often comes out with recommendations on what to eat.
Unhealthy substances are banned to a much higher degree than in the US.
Environmentally friendly produce have special markings.
Menues in restaurants have special markings to allow people with
special diet restrictions to still find out what to order.
Alcohol can only be bought in government stores, only open weekdays 10:00-18:00.
Schools do not serve anything but milk and water to drink. No Coca-Cola.
Smoking is forbidden in restaurants and in many other places,
but you can still buy cigarettes, taxed of course.
There is a discussion on taxing sugar, but nowhere are You forced to eat government
mandated food.

My last visit to the doctor cost me $22.
He recommended physiotherapy.
Tried to book an appointment today, and will go there tomorrow.

And no, it is not communism.

 

[kris]

Yeah...There is a way to make health care universal and 'free'. It is called 'Communism'.

Read about India's malaria eradication program and it's effect on economy .
You will then understand importance of health and impact on economy.
It has nothing to do with communism/capitalism

 

[HeinzG]

Yeah...There is a way to make health care universal and 'free'. It is called 'Communism'.

It's not communism. It's social welfare. IMHO it is government's responsibility to take care of it's subjects' health irrespective of their wealth. Healthy nation is a happy nation. Besides it removes the mental stress of the people who are working hard to secure some money for a large medical bill.

I don't think the government should mandate healthcare. Healthcare should be free market.

Control people's health, and you control their lives. That's how government makes people slaves.

Fed and IRS controls your lives but you don't say anything. But when government tries to mandate medicare you guys go nuts. Don't fall into the traps of multi national companies.

 

[gambit]

And no, it is not communism.

True...More like either you are too scared to call it communism or it is %90 of communism.

When it comes to health care, the most I am willing to acknowledge the government's role is strictly advisory, like in your second sentence. No more.

It's not communism. It's social welfare. IMHO it is government's responsibility to take care of it's subjects' health irrespective of their wealth. Healthy nation is a happy nation. Besides it removes the mental stress of the people who are working hard to secure some money for a large medical bill.

Therefore, I -- the government -- have the right to dictate what you can take into your body and how to live your life to reduce the odds of accidents and diseases.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

True...More like either you are too scared to call it communism or it is %90 of communism.

When it comes to health care, the most I am willing to acknowledge the government's role is strictly advisory, like in your second sentence. No more.


Therefore, I -- the government -- have the right to dictate what you can take into your body and how to live your life to reduce the odds of accidents and diseases.

That is Your interpretation.
Here, the government dictates what cannot be sold due to health hazards through laws.
It may also enforce negative feedback, like warning signs on cigarettes.

It is assumed that most people actually believe that it is bad to harm themselves,
and with the exception of alcohol, where you can be banned from buying,
there are really no restriction on what you eat, or how you live.

The cost of our health care per capita is much lower than the cost per capita in the US,
and we do not have the risk of ruining hospital bills, so we are certainly more efficient.

 

[gambit]

That is Your interpretation.

My interpretation is that people are responsible for their lives. The most anyone, from corporations to the government, can do is offer options and let the people chose.

Regarding health care, which includes the insurance aspect of it. Health care is a product and a tangible one. If we allow the government to compete in one product, then why not another ? Why not allow the government to compete against General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for my money for a car ? A government designed car ? I -- via my tax money -- designed a car to compete against private enterprises for my own money ? It is not absurd as you think considering the lengths of which people interpreted the role of the government in our lives.

Here, the government dictates what cannot be sold due to health hazards through laws.

It may also enforce negative feedback, like warning signs on cigarettes.

I have no problems with the government giving me safety information on which car is safer than another, which health care/insurance plan is better than another, or even which brand of potato chip have more calories than another. But that is the extent of it. I -- via my tax money -- funds an agency that gives people INFORMATION ? Absolutely a positive thing to do.

It is assumed that most people actually believe that it is bad to harm themselves,...

And somehow Americans are less capable at this than Europeans ?

...and with the exception of alcohol, where you can be banned from buying, there are really no restriction on what you eat, or how you live.

Sorry, but if you eat to the point of excess, such as obesity, then just like alcohol, the government should regulate what you eat. After all, it is for your own good.

The cost of our health care per capita is much lower than the cost per capita in the US, and we do not have the risk of ruining hospital bills, so we are certainly more efficient.

The cost issue is a complex one that involves factors that most people do not consider, such as population size or diversity of the same, or the philosophical debate on whether health care/insurance should be a non-profit venture or a capitalistic one.

In the US, the Shriners and St. Joseph children's hospitals do not bill families, but these places are supported by donations. In a perspective, those donations can be seen as a form of insurance, just that it is not specific to your family. But that can be remedied through reformation of the current health care/insurance laws. We can make it so that the people can have affordable health care/insurance without governmental intrusions.

The core issue and difference here is how we view the role of the government in the people's lives. If you feel that the government is a saintly organization, then of course YOU would support governmental controls of your health. If I believe that the government is a demon that must be tolerated and constrained, then of course I would vote to keep the government out of my personal life, most importantly of all, what to do with my body.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

My interpretation is that people are responsible for their lives. The most anyone, from corporations to the government, can do is offer options and let the people chose.

Regarding health care, which includes the insurance aspect of it. Health care is a product and a tangible one. If we allow the government to compete in one product, then why not another ? Why not allow the government to compete against General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler for my money for a car ? A government designed car ? I -- via my tax money -- designed a car to compete against private enterprises for my own money ? It is not absurd as you think considering the lengths of which people interpreted the role of the government in our lives.

I have no problems with the government giving me safety information on which car is safer than another, which health care/insurance plan is better than another, or even which brand of potato chip have more calories than another. But that is the extent of it. I -- via my tax money -- funds an agency that gives people INFORMATION ? Absolutely a positive thing to do.


And somehow Americans are less capable at this than Europeans ?


Sorry, but if you eat to the point of excess, such as obesity, then just like alcohol, the government should regulate what you eat. After all, it is for your own good.


The cost issue is a complex one that involves factors that most people do not consider, such as population size or diversity of the same, or the philosophical debate on whether health care/insurance should be a non-profit venture or a capitalistic one.

In the US, the Shriners and St. Joseph children's hospitals do not bill families, but these places are supported by donations. In a perspective, those donations can be seen as a form of insurance, just that it is not specific to your family. But that can be remedied through reformation of the current health care/insurance laws. We can make it so that the people can have affordable health care/insurance without governmental intrusions.

The core issue and difference here is how we view the role of the government in the people's lives. If you feel that the government is a saintly organization, then of course YOU would support governmental controls of your health. If I believe that the government is a demon that must be tolerated and constrained, then of course I would vote to keep the government out of my personal life, most importantly of all, what to do with my body.

We do not consider healthcare to be the same as a car.
Neither do we consider public communication to be the same.

You assume that just because you pay for health care through taxes,
you have to go to a government hospital, which is not the case.
The government does not run hospitals, they are in Sweden run by "Landstinget",
which is an organisation responsible for healthcare, public communication and regional planning.
Like the government, the leadership is elected.
They are complemented by privately owned hospitals, so You do not need to involve your
body with anything but privately owned healthcare.
Both are payed through taxes. Privately owned companies have to bid for contracts.
They can also charge for treatment not covered by Landstinget, like beauty improvement.

As for allowing obese people to eat whatever they want.
There is such things as invasion of privacy, and this is considered past the line.

Smoking is different, some treatment of conditions caused by smoking is not performed
unless You stop smoke.

Visited my physiotherapist today (a privately owned company) and payed my $6 charge...
This got me past the high cost limit so next month is free. Then it is reset.

 

[Russell]

Government needs to get away from healthcare...

- Stop Medicare for the elderly
- Stop Medicaid for the poor
and definitely stop SOCIALIZED MEDICINE via VA Hospitals for veterans - this evil communist crap has been around for decades and decades.

CLOSE IT ALL DOWN.

In fact, stop people without health insurance from coming into emergency rooms - you want healthcare, you better be able to afford it, if not...tough titties

 

[gambit]

You assume that just because you pay for health care through taxes,
you have to go to a government hospital, which is not the case.

It is not the case because the government ALLOWS it to be -- not the case. And the government have that allowance via your taxes.

Everything you said are only the details inside that allowance. I do not want the government to have any ability to have any allowance at all. That is the core difference between you and I.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

It is not the case because the government ALLOWS it to be -- not the case. And the government have that allowance via your taxes.

Everything you said are only the details inside that allowance. I do not want the government to have any ability to have any allowance at all. That is the core difference between you and I.

In that case, you should work for the principle to be applied to the US Armed Forces.
Each soldier should have a private insurance, if he so chooses.
The Medical Corps should be abolished.
No need for the Government to compete.

 

[gambit]

In that case, you should work for the principle to be applied to the US Armed Forces.
Each soldier should have a private insurance, if he so chooses.
The Medical Corps should be abolished.
No need for the Government to compete.

The military is when the government is your employer and asks for the ultimate -- your life. In this case, the government should take care of you.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The military is when the government is your employer and asks for the ultimate -- your life. In this case, the government should take care of you.

Sorry but why should you trust the government in one case, but not the other?
Soldiers on a home base, without risk, still gets medical treatment.

Companies does not ask for the ultimate, still many provide healthcare.
If you are fired, because of management mistakes you are likely to lose that benefit, right?

 

[gambit]

Sorry but why should you trust the government in one case, but not the other? Soldiers on a home base, without risk, still gets medical treatment.

When I was active duty, I had the option of seeing a civilian doctor if I wanted to. But why should I when I can get medical care for free ?

The military is actually an excellent example. I voluntarily joined the military. In return for many free things, such as health care and education, there are trade offs, such as restrictions to my personal body like hair cuts, limited tattoos, no earrings (for men), salute the rank no matter how I feel about the person, etc...

Companies does not ask for the ultimate, still many provide healthcare.

That is their choice.

If you are fired, because of management mistakes you are likely to lose that benefit, right?

Yes.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

When I was active duty, I had the option of seeing a civilian doctor if I wanted to. But why should I when I can get medical care for free ?

The military is actually an excellent example. I voluntarily joined the military. In return for many free things, such as health care and education, there are trade offs, such as restrictions to my personal body like hair cuts, limited tattoos, no earrings (for men), salute the rank no matter how I feel about the person, etc...


That is their choice.


Yes.

You do NOT get medical health care in the Army for free, you pay for it with taxes.

So You enjoy a system which You do not want to share with others.