Interesting Wiki Chart, is not having UHC bankrupting the US?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by officedepot

what I'm saying is that lots of people considered living in "poverty" have iphones with unlimited data plans. They wait in line to buy ipads. They line up outside stores when a new nike shoe is released (which costs $200). The priorities of these people are not on their health. And they expect someone else to pay for it. I say it is their responsibility. I understand when someone truly is unable and doesn't have an ipad or iphone or flat screen tv but there really are lots of programs already available which I do not necessarily disagree with.

please, if you think the poverty level in america is bad look at china. Multiple people to a room (not related people) in a high rise with 200 rooms. Each person lives in essentially what is a cage and makes less than some atrociously low value. That's poverty. Those people could not afford medical bills. Poverty level americans who can afford an iphone and car can afford their health care costs. They choose not to have insurance so when something bad happens they are hit with a large bill. And it doesn't help that people who make less money are more likely to get sick (lower socioeconomic status is related to poorer health and it's also related to lower education level).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-hutches.html

You do realize that something like 25% of people who go bankrupt due to medical bills had insurance when they got sick?

They should have sold their refrigerator, microwave, color TV (even if it was found on craigslist for less than the price of a frapuccino, it's a luxury), and of course the greatest and most useless luxury of all time: THE CELL PHONE. Because land lines are free and oh so useful, especially when you lose your house. Priorities, people!

Also, did you know that most poor people in Africa are skinny, whereas most of our so-called 'poor' are fat? Food for thought.

/sarcasm

Fyi, when you say that poor people spend all their money on basketball shoes, you might as well throw in rap CDs and weaves, because you're not really talking about the average poor person, who is white. You're talking about someone else.

Originally Posted by officedepot

what I'm saying is that lots of people considered living in "poverty" have iphones with unlimited data plans. They wait in line to buy ipads. They line up outside stores when a new nike shoe is released (which costs $200). The priorities of these people are not on their health. And they expect someone else to pay for it. I say it is their responsibility. I understand when someone truly is unable and doesn't have an ipad or iphone or flat screen tv but there really are lots of programs already available which I do not necessarily disagree with.

please, if you think the poverty level in america is bad look at china. Multiple people to a room (not related people) in a high rise with 200 rooms. Each person lives in essentially what is a cage and makes less than some atrociously low value. That's poverty. Those people could not afford medical bills. Poverty level americans who can afford an iphone and car can afford their health care costs. They choose not to have insurance so when something bad happens they are hit with a large bill. And it doesn't help that people who make less money are more likely to get sick (lower socioeconomic status is related to poorer health and it's also related to lower education level).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-hutches.html

your reckless hyperbole about apple products aside ..... I don't think you can negate a social situation based on the existence of a more extreme case.

Originally Posted by officedepot

what I'm saying is that lots of people considered living in "poverty" have iphones with unlimited data plans. They wait in line to buy ipads. They line up outside stores when a new nike shoe is released (which costs $200). The priorities of these people are not on their health. And they expect someone else to pay for it. I say it is their responsibility. I understand when someone truly is unable and doesn't have an ipad or iphone or flat screen tv but there really are lots of programs already available which I do not necessarily disagree with.

please, if you think the poverty level in america is bad look at china. Multiple people to a room (not related people) in a high rise with 200 rooms. Each person lives in essentially what is a cage and makes less than some atrociously low value. That's poverty. Those people could not afford medical bills. Poverty level americans who can afford an iphone and car can afford their health care costs. They choose not to have insurance so when something bad happens they are hit with a large bill. And it doesn't help that people who make less money are more likely to get sick (lower socioeconomic status is related to poorer health and it's also related to lower education level).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-hutches.html

I think I read the little blog entry you did about poor people having iPhones + data plans. Is there any proof to this other than the n = 1 stories on the internet? How do I know that most poor people are really just negligently spending money? When we make sweeping generalizations, we should at least have some proof or reason.

Multiple reasons
-administration (aka the folder holders) has exploded, with only (IMO) partial returns

-private insurance companies and drug companies spend $ on marketing/advertising to patients that doesn't happen anywhere else, and this makes the price of their products grow

-americans think that health is something the healthcare system gives them instead of health being something that is maintained by the individual and the system will help you in that pursuit.

-many people think that healthcare is magic and pursue expensive treatment in cases of minimal returns, often in situations mentioned previously

-when said magic fails to happen, people sue unnecessarily, and we practice expensive defensive CYA medicine. Tort reform needs to be part of curtailing it.

-the practice of using emergency departments as urgent care clinics and the need to clear you of every immediately life threatening diagnosis regardless of plausibility like "I have a headache with no vital sign abnormalities and no appreciable neurologic deficits" -> I'm getting a STAT head CT

Honestly I don't see this unbridled medical practice of days of yore playing out in my training. There is a lot of who is paying for what when and where questions that happen frequently and bog down practice which is something that is also absent in a single payer system. In practice we're always doing what someone else tells us either payers or lawsuits, I figure if it's some kind of national single payer system we could get more physician input.

.

Increased healthcare spending is not necessarily a bad thing. A huge chunk of our economy is devoted to healthcare and that means tons of extra healthcare jobs out there (cue the graph from before showing the increase of administrators and non-medical healthcare professions). Healthcare is a very stable part of our economy and provides for the livelihood of a large percentage of the population. More healthcare = more jobs = more manufacturing (all that expensive medical equipment) = more R&D pharmaceutical, etc. As our economy transitions more and more into a service economy, healthcare becomes a bigger portion.

Which can a poor person more likely afford: a PC and a cable subscription, or an iphone 3S with a 2 gig data plan? How does lack of access to email, craigslist, online banking etc. help a poor person?

Your basic argument seems to be that using an iPhone while poor is not just irresponsible but irrational. Unless you're conflating poor with homeless (they usually have prepaid, and no that's not a luxury, how else should they communicate?) this just doesn't make much sense in 2012.

I've heard all this so many times, it drives me up the wall. If you know where to look, you can acquire a' color TV' and 'an iphone' for maybe $25. Equating luxury with surplus electronics is baffling to me.

.

Originally Posted by scarshapedstar

Which can a poor person more likely afford: a PC and a cable subscription, or an iphone 3S with a 2 gig data plan? How does lack of access to email, craigslist, online banking etc. help a poor person?

Your basic argument seems to be that using an iPhone while poor is not just irresponsible but irrational. Unless you're conflating poor with homeless (they usually have prepaid, and no that's not a luxury, how else should they communicate?) this just doesn't make much sense in 2012.

I've heard all this so many times, it drives me up the wall. If you know where to look, you can acquire a' color TV' and 'an iphone' for maybe $25. Equating luxury with surplus electronics is baffling to me.

I dont get this question. The iphone clearly cost a ton more...iphone with data is upwards of $1,200 a year vs. $150 a year for a cheap broadband subscription.

How are craigslist and online banking helping poor people...pretty sure they still mail everything you need for banking and why do you need craigslist...it didnt even exist 10 years ago? Regardless you can get a cheapo computer and cheapo internet, you have no need for an a smartphone.

Its not the outdated tv or phone which is the major cost. Its the subscription which goes along with the items. While a $50 outdated TV isnt a major yearly expenditure, a $60 a month cable TV X 12 months = $700 is a huge cost. Frankly I would like you to cite a source showing poor people generally buy mostly refurbished electronics. I would bet the majority are still buying new iphones/TVs.

Originally Posted by bigloley

Increased healthcare spending is not necessarily a bad thing. A huge chunk of our economy is devoted to healthcare and that means tons of extra healthcare jobs out there (cue the graph from before showing the increase of administrators and non-medical healthcare professions). Healthcare is a very stable part of our economy and provides for the livelihood of a large percentage of the population. More healthcare = more jobs = more manufacturing (all that expensive medical equipment) = more R&D pharmaceutical, etc. As our economy transitions more and more into a service economy, healthcare becomes a bigger portion.

But you are missing the elephant in the room, most of this spending is coming from our federal government via medicaid/medicare. Deny what I am going to say all you want, but come back to this thread in a few decades, I will be right.

As our national debt increases we only have a few ways of "pay it off." The way it has been addressed in the past decade and up to now is through the feds influence on inflation. This is good for our national debt because inflation is slowly "reducing" it.

However, it is absolutely terrible for everyone else. If everyone is effectively making 40% less in 20 years how is society going to be functioning when hardly anyone can purchase anything? Granted we have had big inflation before in our nation's history, but it was ALWAYS caused by a particular event(s) not a permanent shift in federal government responsibilities. If we continue to have effective inflation rates at 5-7% we are in for harder times.

Originally Posted by surftheiop

According to that graph the US system causes the most unnecessary deaths out of all those countries and has the highest infant mortality

Recorded differently between the countries too

Originally Posted by link2swim06

But you are missing the elephant in the room, most of this spending is coming from our federal government via medicaid/medicare. Deny what I am going to say all you want, but come back to this thread in a few decades, I will be right.

actually, as source of funds, medicaid+medicare is about the same as private insurance. as source of expenditure, the top ones are hospitals and physicians/clinics.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0135.pdf (pdf)

so to lower cost,

-we need to get people to use the hospitals less, ie, don't go to the ER so much. so they need to be able to afford going to their pcps.

-we need to cut out the non-surance middle men from the equation. we can't have sharks with profit as their only motive standing in the way of people's lives!

-we need to have non-profit hospitals as well as private hospitals, with people having the option to go to whichever they choose or can afford. non-profit hospitals would be like VA for the public. and we need expanded medicare for the public. miltary and congress have govt provided healthcare, why can't public have the same option? only ppl who are bothered by that are non-surance sharks and greedy hospital MBAs.


http://www.pnhp.org/

Originally Posted by startoverat40

actually, as source of funds, medicaid+medicare is about the same as private insurance. as source of expenditure, the top ones are hospitals and physicians/clinics.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0135.pdf (pdf)

so to lower cost,

-we need to get people to use the hospitals less, ie, don't go to the ER so much. so they need to be able to afford going to their pcps.

-we need to cut out the non-surance middle men from the equation. we can't have sharks with profit as their only motive standing in the way of people's lives!

-we need to have non-profit hospitals as well as private hospitals, with people having the option to go to whichever they choose or can afford. non-profit hospitals would be like VA for the public. and we need expanded medicare for the public. miltary and congress have govt provided healthcare, why can't public have the same option? only ppl who are bothered by that are non-surance sharks and greedy hospital MBAs.


http://www.pnhp.org/

Haha, ok and there is a land with mystical unicorns too. We are broke as a country, we dont have money to give everyone a universal option. Sorry, it will destroy our economy (and our country for that matter) due to massive debt and inflation. Even if you taxed the rich at 100%, it still would not get close to sustaining funding for a long term universal option.

.

we're broke as a country, and yet we can afford trillions of dollars in useless wars and bailing out the banks. cut out those expenses first, then come and tell me we can't afford to help our own people!

i pick on non-surance companies cause we pay them money for nothing. they are not a value-add to the system. they are just leaches. i am against them because they kill people by spreadsheets. I have nothing against corporations which create products and make however much profits (there is an environmental cost to the rampant consumerism sucking out the life out of our planet, but that's another debate). the fat salaries and bonuses of the non-surance CEOs do increase the cost from the public's point of view, because the non-surance premiums and copays are money out of their pockets. for which they don't get what they need in return: healthcare.


the cost can be brought down by providing the public option to collectively negotiate prices for drugs, supplies, and services. medicaid and medicare are sources of funding. but what is the source of the cost? it is from overuse of hospitals and expensive procedures, redundant CYA tests, etc. we have to reduce the costs. to say that medicaid and medicare expenditure is increasing is not the same as saying that public funding of healthcare is increasing the cost.

Originally Posted by sineapse

Paid up Conservative right here.

Numbers don't lie however. You believe that the CDC was lying when they said one in five families struggle to pay bills? Or those 20% of families are all spending their cash on flat screen TVs?

More than that.
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty

Originally Posted by startoverat40

we're broke as a country, and yet we can afford trillions of dollars in useless wars and bailing out the banks. cut out those expenses first, then come and tell me we can't afford to help our own people!

i pick on non-surance companies cause we pay them money for nothing. they are not a value-add to the system. they are just leaches. i am against them because they kill people by spreadsheets. I have nothing against corporations which create products and make however much profits (there is an environmental cost to the rampant consumerism sucking out the life out of our planet, but that's another debate). the fat salaries and bonuses of the non-surance CEOs do increase the cost from the public's point of view, because the non-surance premiums and copays are money out of their pockets. for which they don't get what they need in return: healthcare.


the cost can be brought down by providing the public option to collectively negotiate prices for drugs, supplies, and services. medicaid and medicare are sources of funding. but what is the source of the cost? it is from overuse of hospitals and expensive procedures, redundant CYA tests, etc. we have to reduce the costs. to say that medicaid and medicare expenditure is increasing is not the same as saying that public funding of healthcare is increasing the cost.

Please research your statements.

1) Bank Bailouts made the US money, not cost us money http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/30/news...gram/index.htm this amounts to ~20 billion dollars in profit or $66 per man, women, and child.

2) Pertaining to CEOs....it comes out to 10 cents a month per customer due to the CEOs "excessive" salary. I know a dime is alot...I mean for a minimum wage worker it is a whole 61 seconds of extra work a month. Or less than 2 seconds a day of extra of work for the worst paid people in our society. Oh what the burden....

So these two aspects of your plan are costing every American $64.80 last year. Or every three person household nearly $200. At least those "greedy" banks and CEOs will be feeling pain too, right? Good plan, sounds on par with congress.

your idea of research is to quote Corporate News (wallstreet propaganda)? TARP was just tip of the iceberg. the bailouts and giveaways continue under the table.


non-surance companies are motivated only by profit and shareholder, not by the lives of human beings. premiums must contineu to rise, because non-surance companies are driven by the insatiable wallstreet greed. CEO's bonus is reward for death-by-spreadsheet and increased premiums thus increased profit.

Originally Posted by Dr.McNinja

More than that.
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty

that's from 2005. wonder how it is now.

thanks to "made in china", a lot of those consumer goods dont' cost that much. they are also one-time purchases, not recurring monthly expenses.

some of the top items would be considered required for living in many American cities. you need a fridge to store food, AC and heating to survive in summer and winter, stove or microwave to cook food.

funny how a wallstreet think tank would produce a report to say that the poor don't actually have it so bad ! ya the poor are just a bunch of lazy whiners. maybe it's the wallstreet 1% that we need to cry for.

Originally Posted by officedepot

what I'm saying is that lots of people considered living in "poverty" have iphones with unlimited data plans. They wait in line to buy ipads. They line up outside stores when a new nike shoe is released (which costs $200). The priorities of these people are not on their health. And they expect someone else to pay for it. I say it is their responsibility. I understand when someone truly is unable and doesn't have an ipad or iphone or flat screen tv but there really are lots of programs already available which I do not necessarily disagree with.

please, if you think the poverty level in america is bad look at china. Multiple people to a room (not related people) in a high rise with 200 rooms. Each person lives in essentially what is a cage and makes less than some atrociously low value. That's poverty. Those people could not afford medical bills. Poverty level americans who can afford an iphone and car can afford their health care costs. They choose not to have insurance so when something bad happens they are hit with a large bill. And it doesn't help that people who make less money are more likely to get sick (lower socioeconomic status is related to poorer health and it's also related to lower education level).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-hutches.html

Good grief, you sound like a raving lunatic. Please show me some pictures of your local down and outs queueing outside your local Apple store next time an iPad gets released; don't forget to include pictures of their new Nikes whilst you're at it

FYI, the Daily Mail is known to be a scandalous and sensationalist newspaper. Please don't believe everything it says.

I've lived overseas most of my life, visited places all over the world so I know how the score is in a lot of places. You don't have to link in some pictures. As for the US, you cannot deny that you have a serious problem with the low end of the population. If you want to look at it from a conservative standpoint, you are keeping a productive workforce and are reducing the amount of people who need assistance from the State if you keep them basically healthy.

You essentially accused me of being a bleeding heart liberal because I told you to have a heart; well frankly, I take that as a compliment to my empathy as a person and a physician. Seen that video about poor children at school? Hearing a kid who looks clinically depressed and scared because she has to eat a rat is harrowing. I'm pretty sure her mom didn't decide to go out and buy an Ipad and in doing some forced her child to eat a feral rat.

I think its hilarious that people are bashing poor people for buying a TV.
A TV is by far one of the most economically efficient sources of entertainment around, a middle class family of 5 going to movie once or twice a year probably costs more than a TV which can provide daily entertainment for years.

Additionally, from a risk/reward standpoint there is no reason for a poor family to sit on the floor of a dark house to save $400 a year, because if someone has an emergency and has to go to the ER, your going to be just as broke if you initially had $400 in the bank as if you had $3,000 in the bank. Until you can afford health insurance and have like 10k in the bank, there is really no reason to save for major healthcare expenses because if something bad happens your going to go broke anyway.

Originally Posted by officedepot

The following report provides some evidence to what I have been saying:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/income.pdf

As one poster pointed out thinking I am being discrimitatory or something of that nature by saying people will spend $200 on nike shoes and relating that to African americans apparently:
In table 686 you can clearly see that African American/black spend $430/year on footwear whereas “whites and all other races” spend $307. Table 693 shows money income of households broken down by race. And since by the numbers “blacks alone” are more likely to have a lower income than “whites alone” it is reasonable to make a connection. Now pointing out numbers is not discriminatory. This data is from the census bureau too.

Table 693 goes into detail breaking down expenditures across races among all sorts of things, including healthcare, education, etc. I will not point out everything. It’s on page 19/40.


Also there are many many other data tables in the report on most everything you can imagine. Though I could not find a table showing consumption of consumer goods vs income level. I’d be more interested in the percentage anyway as that’s what more important but seems the census bureau doesn’t calculate that.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122532966811882759.html


Now this article was written in 2008. Basically pointed out that lower income individuals were more likely to purchase the iphone. Of course the justification is that it can save money but there is no proof that was actually done by purchasers of the iphone with low incomes. Pricing schemes of cell phone companies nowadays are very strict and expensive and most no longer offer unlimited plans so people most likely cannot do this anymore. However the point of the article being poor people are more likely to buy the iphone. If someone can find something more recent showing a change I'd be interested.

I don’t just make this stuff up guys.

It is interesting to see the data that people use to make conclusions.

Blacks spend 33% more on footwear each year, (~$400 vs ~$300) and we conclude they're out buying $200 Nikes. Well, what are other people buying $150 Adidas?

Sometimes we also have odd expectations of poor people.

You shouldn't want or be able to watch TV, use a cell phone, watch movies or own high speed internet or a data plan. You're poor.

Originally Posted by surftheiop

I think its hilarious that people are bashing poor people for buying a TV.
A TV is by far one of the most economically efficient sources of entertainment around, a middle class family of 5 going to movie once or twice a year probably costs more than a TV which can provide daily entertainment for years.

Additionally, from a risk/reward standpoint there is no reason for a poor family to sit on the floor of a dark house to save $400 a year, because if someone has an emergency and has to go to the ER, your going to be just as broke if you initially had $400 in the bank as if you had $3,000 in the bank. Until you can afford health insurance and have like 10k in the bank, there is really no reason to save for major healthcare expenses because if something bad happens your going to go broke anyway.

I agree here. I think our medical community has become homogeneous and we're starting to discriminate on those out of our group (i.e. poor people). I'm shocked at the bills for healthcare before my insurance determines their own pay out. $500 ER visit, PCP visit for immunization ~$200, etc.

Originally Posted by JackShephard MD

It is interesting to see the data that people use to make conclusions.

Blacks spend 33% more on footwear each year, (~$400 vs ~$300) and we conclude they're out buying $200 Nikes. Well, what are other people buying $150 Adidas?

Sometimes we also have odd expectations of poor people.

You shouldn't want or be able to watch TV, use a cell phone, watch movies or own high speed internet or a data plan. You're poor.

And refrigerators .... the audacity!

Originally Posted by JackShephard MD

I agree here. I think our medical community has become homogeneous and we're starting to discriminate on those out of our group (i.e. poor people). I'm shocked at the bills for healthcare before my insurance determines their own pay out. $500 ER visit, PCP visit for immunization ~$200, etc.

What do you mean that the medical community "has become homogeneous?"

.

Originally Posted by startoverat40

your idea of research is to quote Corporate News (wallstreet propaganda)? TARP was just tip of the iceberg. the bailouts and giveaways continue under the table.


non-surance companies are motivated only by profit and shareholder, not by the lives of human beings. premiums must contineu to rise, because non-surance companies are driven by the insatiable wallstreet greed. CEO's bonus is reward for death-by-spreadsheet and increased premiums thus increased profit.

facepalm...I quoted cnn, I let my case rest.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

What do you mean that the medical community "has become homogeneous?"

Most people are from upper-middle class privileged upbringings and don't have outside perspective.

Not all, but most.

Originally Posted by officedepot

You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know anything about economics or government. You think healthcare is expensive because of all the expensive procedures... good one. Why are drugs expensive? In your line of thought it's obviously because drug co. ceos just want to make more and more millions for their greedy selves. It has nothing to do with the piles and piles of regulations, the demands they provide certain ones for free, the fact that medicare/medicaid will not pay more than a certain percentage of the actual cost, etc.

It's ok apple and google want to make money but not insurance co. Apple makes a phone and computer and make half of what you pay in pure profit. That's not greedy? Google has a search engine... worth billions and billions. Facebook is a website... billions of worth. Why can't those ceos give their money to poor people instead of holding it in offshore accounts dodging taxes? Now health insurance making 2% profit... NO NO NO way too much. They shouldn't make money. It's people's health! have a heart! It should all be free! Tell me, since everyone here is so sure that an iphone provides such great value to poor people why is that not free? Why don't we give everyone a TV so they can get their news since it's obviously what they do with a TV.

Oh and what about car insurance co. Why do they have to make so much money. No one asks their car insurance co to pay for their oil changes or tire rotations. Yet you demand a health insurance co to pay for every baby aspirin you should take. I bet you don't even understand the point of insurance. Hint: it is not there to pay for your every need in healthcare. Insurance is meant to protect you financially if something bad happens like a car accident and your medical bills skyrocket.

Do you even know how insurance works? It's a rhetorical question because I already know you don't. I'm not going to explain further. Look it up.

Oh the public option is so great? Who's going to pay for that? Ah yes the government will just stop all the wars, get rid of the military, and pay for everyone's healthcare. Good plan. Except I bet you don't even know how the government gets it's money... well taxpayers. And who pays taxes?? Ah yes the top 1% pay 40% of all income tax. The bottom 50% pay no taxes. None. So then the rich can pay for the poor's healthcare! Let's just take all their money! They don't need it anyway. Tell me, who creates jobs for poor people? I assure you it isn't a poor person... Now why would a "rich" person take their money to fund an expansion of their business, or invest in a start-up company, etc if all their money is being taken from them (right now the US takes 50% of their income in taxes... but that's not enough is it)?

Please, startoverat, just go away because you are so misinformed it's not worth the 5 seconds in time it takes to read your post.





The point is not that they shouldn't be able to watch TV. It's that these people still buy TVs and expensive shoes and iphones and nice cars with big shiny rims all the while drawing from welfare, food stamps, etc while demanding we pay for their healthcare... If they are so poor they shouldn't even be able to afford things like TV or an iphone. Essentially it all boils down to them not being educated and simply not caring and it's part of the stupid people in the country.


and your bills are so high because of cost-shifting as I alluded to in another post. Lots and lots of people pay absolutely nothing for their healthcare. So when people who have insurance show up you have to shell out a crapload of money to offset the loss from those who pay nothing. This happens even if you don't go to an inner city poor person's hospital. Those types of hospitals get almost all their money from medicare/medicaid which the state must fund (through tax dollars). And hospitals with more insurance holders get less in medicare/medicaid funding. So in essence you are already paying for a poor person's healthcare right now. Greedy insurance co bastards.

The cost of the old iPhone is $100.

I agree with your sentiments that a person should not take advantage of the system and buy lavish goods while ignoring basic essentials. At the same time, I've seen poor families unlike your scenario. People on minimum wage, making under $20,000/yr for a family of 4. They may be able to snag a $100 phone but not a $10,000 healthcare policy.

There's no simple solution. But not all poor people live in this fantasy land you've described, where the toys are plentiful and Uncle Sam foots the bills.

Originally Posted by officedepot

You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not know anything about economics or government. You think healthcare is expensive because of all the expensive procedures... good one. Why are drugs expensive? In your line of thought it's obviously because drug co. ceos just want to make more and more millions for their greedy selves. It has nothing to do with the piles and piles of regulations, the demands they provide certain ones for free, the fact that medicare/medicaid will not pay more than a certain percentage of the actual cost, etc.

It's ok apple and google want to make money but not insurance co. Apple makes a phone and computer and make half of what you pay in pure profit. That's not greedy? Google has a search engine... worth billions and billions. Facebook is a website... billions of worth. Why can't those ceos give their money to poor people instead of holding it in offshore accounts dodging taxes? Now health insurance making 2% profit... NO NO NO way too much. They shouldn't make money. It's people's health! have a heart! It should all be free! Tell me, since everyone here is so sure that an iphone provides such great value to poor people why is that not free? Why don't we give everyone a TV so they can get their news since it's obviously what they do with a TV.

Oh and what about car insurance co. Why do they have to make so much money. No one asks their car insurance co to pay for their oil changes or tire rotations. Yet you demand a health insurance co to pay for every baby aspirin you should take. I bet you don't even understand the point of insurance. Hint: it is not there to pay for your every need in healthcare. Insurance is meant to protect you financially if something bad happens like a car accident and your medical bills skyrocket.

Do you even know how insurance works? It's a rhetorical question because I already know you don't. I'm not going to explain further. Look it up.

Oh the public option is so great? Who's going to pay for that? Ah yes the government will just stop all the wars, get rid of the military, and pay for everyone's healthcare. Good plan. Except I bet you don't even know how the government gets it's money... well taxpayers. And who pays taxes?? Ah yes the top 1% pay 40% of all income tax. The bottom 50% pay no taxes. None. So then the rich can pay for the poor's healthcare! Let's just take all their money! They don't need it anyway. Tell me, who creates jobs for poor people? I assure you it isn't a poor person... Now why would a "rich" person take their money to fund an expansion of their business, or invest in a start-up company, etc if all their money is being taken from them (right now the US takes 50% of their income in taxes... but that's not enough is it)?

Please, startoverat, just go away because you are so misinformed it's not worth the 5 seconds in time it takes to read your post.





The point is not that they shouldn't be able to watch TV. It's that these people still buy TVs and expensive shoes and iphones and nice cars with big shiny rims all the while drawing from welfare, food stamps, etc while demanding we pay for their healthcare... If they are so poor they shouldn't even be able to afford things like TV or an iphone. Essentially it all boils down to them not being educated and simply not caring and it's part of the stupid people in the country.


and your bills are so high because of cost-shifting as I alluded to in another post. Lots and lots of people pay absolutely nothing for their healthcare. So when people who have insurance show up you have to shell out a crapload of money to offset the loss from those who pay nothing. This happens even if you don't go to an inner city poor person's hospital. Those types of hospitals get almost all their money from medicare/medicaid which the state must fund (through tax dollars). And hospitals with more insurance holders get less in medicare/medicaid funding. So in essence you are already paying for a poor person's healthcare right now. Greedy insurance co bastards.

I would think that a medical student would know how to have a debate without makeing ad hominem and personally insulting remarks like "go away you're not worth talking to". you go away. do you own this place? sighhh.....


i posted the link to the census document, which showed the top two sources of COST are hospitals and doctors/clinics. so you tell me why healthcare is expensive.

apple, google, facebook, etc can make as much money as they can. i dont' care and have no objection (beyond the environmental one, which is outside the scope of this debate.) I'm not against non-surance companies only because they make money. I'm against them because they add no benefit to delivery of healthcare, and yet they benefit from denying people the care that they require and deserve. Purchasing goods and services from corporations is discretionary, but STAYING ALIVE is not something that we should have to make a choice about.

I have a moral objection to people having to pay money to a profit-making corporation - one which adds nothing to the actual healthcare service - just so they can stay alive, and the corporation turns around and denies them the care they need.

I know what insurance is for. Driving a car is voluntary and discretionary, and so insurance companies making a profit by selling car insurance is fine by me. But staying healthy/alive is not discretionary, and a corporation shouldn't make a profit out of people's health and life.

How does an insurance company make a profit, and on top of that, how does it keep up with Wallstreet's demand for ever-increasing profits? There are only two ways: increase premiums, and decrease benefit payouts. From the public's point of view, they are paying more and more for less and less, and in the process 50,000 pepole are dying each year due to lack of proper healthcare benefits. This is morally unacceptable, for profit-making companies to get richer and richer while people are dying!

Yes, the top 1% should pay higher taxes so the 99% can have healthcare, good schools, and good roads, because it is the 99% whose labor generates the wealth that the 1% accumilates. It's called an interconnected and mutually benefiting society. The Aynd Randian cult seems to want to drag us into the jungle and dog-eat-dog world.

Originally Posted by link2swim06

facepalm...I quoted cnn, I let my case rest.

CNN is a huge corporation and so are the rest of the "news" media. whose interests do you think they have at heart? Yours? Hah!

journalism for the most part is dead. pick up your "news" from someplace else.

here is some research for you:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-rent-20120319
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-jail-20110216
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...louts-20111117

lots more to read there, enjoy.

Originally Posted by startoverat40

but STAYING ALIVE is not something that we should have to make a choice about.

Sing it, brother!