• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts

Status
Not open for further replies.

avatar299

Banned
Aaron said:
I'm not sure what you mean. If insured patients aren't being treated in a timely manner, it has less to do with coverage and more to do with not having sufficient facilities and doctors to see to their needs. It's also a problem that's greatly worsened if they wait on an illness to be treated at ER and end up clogging that system, depriving care from people who truly are in an emergency situation.

There are a number of issues with healthcare in this country, and universal system is hardly a fix all, but it's a step in the right direction.
Many countries with universal healthcare do run into trouble with finite resources.

Universal Healthcare doesn't increase healthcare supply very much, so there tends to be the horror story of "3 month waitlists for MRI, not enough beds in hospitals, families, politicians, etc travel to America for operation etc etc"

Not to say our system is perfect, they both have their interesting flaws.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
avatar299 said:
Many countries with universal healthcare do run into trouble with finite resources.

Universal Healthcare doesn't increase healthcare supply very much, so there tends to be the horror story of "3 month waitlists for MRI, not enough beds in hospitals, families, politicians, etc travel to America for operation etc etc"

Not to say our system is perfect, they both have their interesting flaws.

Whatever horror stories exist in a countries with universal healthcare, I'm sure there are much less sever than those we hear about almost daily in the United States. I personally have a friend, who happens to work full time but does not have very good health coverage, who lost the functionality in one of his middle fingers because of his poor health care coverage. He cut his middle finger on a piece of metal one night and we rushed him to the emergency room where they pretty much told him that his plan doesn't cut it and he would have to pay something like $1200 to perform some basic surgery to restore functionality to his finger. He didn't have that kind of cash so they just sewed him up and sent him on his way. Now he will never be able to move his middle finger again.

Crap like this is just the tip of the iceberg. People who aren't particularly affluent are getting screwed in major ways every day in America because of our health system.
 

devilhawk

Member
Aaron said:
Universal health care will be cheaper in the long run, especially if it's decently managed. Right now we have a huge problem with the uninsured getting sick and doing nothing until it's a critical issue, then going to the ER when they have to be accepted, risking their own health and costing the hospital a hell of a lot more money if they were insured and took care of things at the start. That puts the burden on the hospital, which gets passed onto the government, and then back to the tax payers. Other problems are the cost of malpractice suits, the unchecked rising cost of medicine, and the cost drain on the system caused by the obese and other self-inflicted health problems.

The system needs a complete overhaul. 'Free' healthcare can and won't work, but universal healthcare is absolutely one step that needs to be taken. As someone who works in a hospital, McCain's plan is ignorant to the point of insulting.
The inefficiencies of our current system are not going to bettered by simply enacting universal health care. It will likely make it even worse.

We all know how the uninsured are rising prices. Even if tort reform was nationalized, it makes up too little of total costs. Tort reform should have happened a long time ago and it would have curtailed rising malpractice costs. There are just too many problems that UHC doesn't even come close to fixing. UHC will fix the problem of people with no insurance, sure. But at what price? This price may not be in dollars but in the level of care.

UHC won't do a single thing to stave off rising health care costs. Drug prices certainly won't go down. Costs will continue to rise and the tax payer will get killed. We pay 15% GDP right now on health care - which is over 40% of all health care expenses in the US. The current government system in place covers 30% of the nation and provides dismal coverage. The tract record for US government health care is horrible.

For example, Medicare, which makes up a majority of that 30% has been hit by cuts, not in the program costs, but in the amount given to doctors by 10%. Many doctors no longer see new Medicare patients because it is no longer economically feasible. The shortage of primary care doctors in the nation is growing. UHC doesn't fix any of these problems, and those are just what I could think of.

I say this as a son of an Internist and a RN, a nephew of an Orthopedic surgeon, a former worker of a research med hospital, and am currently employed in the pharmaceutical industry.

Edit: Don't get the wrong idea though. Managed care is worse. And I'll spare you guys my Medicaid and prescription drug costs rants.
 

Kildace

Member
Darth Sonik said:
Someone should distribute that DVD in every newspaper in America, instead of Anti-Islam Propaganda.

The only impact this would have is that "Ow my balls" would appear on Fox 3 months later.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
devilhawk said:
The inefficiencies of our current system are not going to bettered by simply enacting universal health care. It will likely make it even worse.

We all know how the uninsured our rising prices. Even if tort reform was nationalized, it makes up too little of total costs. Tort reform should have happened a long time ago and it would have curtailed rising malpractice costs. There are just too many problems that UHC doesn't even come close to fixing. UHC will fix the problem of people with no insurance, sure. But at what price? This price may not be in dollars but in the level of care.

UHC won't do a single thing to stave off rising health care costs. Drug prices certainly won't go down. Costs will continue to rise and the tax payer will get killed. We pay 15% GDP right now on health care - which is over 40% of all health care expenses in the US. The current government system in place covers 30% of the nation and provides dismal coverage. The tract record for US government health care is horrible.

For example, Medicare, which makes up a majority of that 30% has been hit by cuts, not in the program costs, but in the amount given to doctors by 10%. Many doctors no longer see new Medicare patients because it is no longer economically feasible. The shortage of primary care doctors in the nation is growing. UHC doesn't fix any of these problems, and those are just what I could think of.

I say this as a son of an Internist and a RN, a nephew of an Orthopedic surgeon, a former worker of a research med hospital, and am currently employed in the pharmaceutical industry.

Edit: Don't get the wrong idea though. Managed care is worse.

So how do countries with UHC do it so well? It seems to be working very well in many other countries. You are obviously more informed on the healthcare industry than I am, but I still disagree that UHC would not work. Why not regulate the drug companies so they are unable to charge so much for their products. Of course these companies would need subsidies to offset the cost of research, but this way the government could encourage more refined research on pharmaceuticals that actually combat illnesses instead of anti-balding and penis-enlargement pills (I know I am exaggerating here).

Of course government spending on health care will dramatically increase and taxes will rise as a result, but I think things like infrastructure, health care, education and defense are areas that should not be skimped on. A healthy and educated nation is a stronger nation and I believe it is something that every citizen should be obliged to contribute to. I guess I just envision a society where everyone gets good health care and a decent education as better than a society where only a select few receive these opportunities, even if that means that everyone has to pay more to realize such a society.
 

avatar299

Banned
Zefah said:
Whatever horror stories exist in a countries with universal healthcare, I'm sure there are much less sever than those we hear about almost daily in the United States. I personally have a friend, who happens to work full time but does not have very good health coverage, who lost the functionality in one of his middle fingers because of his poor health care coverage. He cut his middle finger on a piece of metal one night and we rushed him to the emergency room where they pretty much told him that his plan doesn't cut it and he would have to pay something like $1200 to perform some basic surgery to restore functionality to his finger. He didn't have that kind of cash so they just sewed him up and sent him on his way. Now he will never be able to move his middle finger again.

Crap like this is just the tip of the iceberg. People who aren't particularly affluent are getting screwed in major ways every day in America because of our health system.
Would he have been treated with the same quality if he paid?

Anyone can come up with horror stories about health care systems. It's just the nature of the infustry.
 

devilhawk

Member
Zefah said:
So how do countries with UHC do it so well? It seems to be working very well in many other countries. You are obviously more informed on the healthcare industry than I am, but I still disagree that UHC would not work. Why not regulate the drug companies so they are unable to charge so much for their products. Of course these companies would need subsidies to offset the cost of research, but this way the government could encourage more refined research on pharmaceuticals that actually combat illnesses instead of anti-balding and penis-enlargement pills (I know I am exaggerating here).

Of course government spending on health care will dramatically increase and taxes will rise as a result, but I think things like infrastructure, health care, education and defense are areas that should not be skimped on. A healthy and educated nation is a stronger nation and I believe it is something that every citizen should be obliged to contribute to. I guess I just envision a society where everyone gets good health care and a decent education as better than a society where only a select few receive these opportunities, even if that means that everyone has to pay more to realize such a society.
The simple response to the question of pharmaceutical companies is that the world gets the benefits of our system.

It is a tricky question whether or not innovation would continue if we became a carbon copy of other UHC's. The FDA has many faults, but they are also very stingy on what gets passed. The world benefits from this. I don't buy the notion of "pharm only wants to treat, not to cure." Pharm companies have spent billions on research and trials for drugs to cure real diseases. They aren't exaggerating when they say it sometimes takes decades to research and pass a drug. I spent a year studying an Alzheimer's drug that worked in vitro but likely never made it further.

Another problem America has is a lot of people don't think they should have to get health insurance. I wouldn't be surprised of the number of graduates in this forum that have neglected to get health insurance. People don't think of it as a necessity.

I had to sit down and talk to a friend once who was going to quit her job and move to another job which pays a quarter more. The new job didn't give a fraction as good of health coverage. People just truly don't know any better, but the government knows less.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
avatar299 said:
Would he have been treated with the same quality if he paid?

Anyone can come up with horror stories about health care systems. It's just the nature of the infustry.

I assume they would have fixed his finger up if he paid the $1200 or so they demanded of him. Unfortunately for him, he couldn't spare that kind of cash at the time.

I know anyone can come up with horror stories, but I was just arguing that the horror stories from the United States' health care system are probably a lot more horrific than anything coming out of a developed nation with universal health care.
 

Keylime

ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
Doesn't it sound kind of inhuman to not want your fellow Americans to not have the right to be healthy?

"Fuck that guy, if he's poor, he deserves to die of heart disease because he can't pay for treatment."

"Don't give a shit if that guy lost his limb in a construction accident, if he can't pay, he has to live with the consequences."

...now I'm not necessarily for UHC, as I haven't read up on what it takes to get there and what the impact to society would be (financially), but isn't it a good idea, regardless of whether you think it financially makes sense or not?

Doesn't Barack's plan to not have UHC, but to make HC more affordable for everyone play as a happy medium to everyone, as well?

To be honest, healthcare is something I couldn't give a shit about (as I get it through my company), so it's not an issue I read about or research at all, so it's very possible I'm missing some key data here.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
devilhawk said:
The simple response to the question of pharmaceutical companies is that the world gets the benefits of our system.

It is a tricky question whether or not innovation would continue if we became a carbon copy of other UHC's. The FDA has many faults, but they are also very stingy on what gets passed. The world benefits from this. I don't buy the notion of "pharm only wants to treat, not to cure." Pharm companies have spent billions on research and trials for drugs to cure real diseases. They aren't exaggerating when they say it sometimes takes decades to research and pass a drug. I spent a year studying an Alzheimer's drug that worked in vitro but likely never made it further.

Another problem America has is a lot of people don't think they should have to get health insurance. I wouldn't be surprised of the number of graduates in this forum that have neglected to get health insurance. People don't think of it as a necessity.

I had to sit down and talk to a friend once who was going to quit her job and move to another job which pays a quarter more. The new job didn't give a fraction as good of health coverage. People just truly don't know any better, but the government knows less.

I agree that a lot of Americans are completely oblivious to how health insurance works and why they need it. It is definitely a problem, and I believe it is one problem that a comprehensive universal health care program will fix.

I see your argument that the research from American pharmaceutical companies benefits the world, but I am not sure if I am willing to accept that innovation will die off if regulations are implemented and research costs are subsidized. I am just speculating here, but if you are making an insane amount of money selling people drugs, wouldn't want them to keep coming back for more? If you were an evil son-of-a-bitch corporate head, wouldn't you want said drugs to be engineered in a way that keeps sick people (your customers) coming back for more? I have no evidence to back up my speculation, but I have a feeling that as long as the pharmaceutical industry is profit-driven the interests of the sick patient will never be the top priority.
 

devilhawk

Member
Frank the Great said:
You guys realize that the Democrats aren't proposing a single payer UHC plan at all, right?
I know. He has some good ideas. Too bad most of it won't get passed because the Dems are mostly trial lawyers and the lobbyists on both sides will prevent major reform.
 

Aaron

Member
devilhawk said:
The inefficiencies of our current system are not going to bettered by simply enacting universal health care. It will likely make it even worse.
Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. Though my idea of a UHC wouldn't be a 'freecare' system and it wouldn't cover everything. It's also just one of many issues with healthcare in the US that needs to be addressed. Honestly, I don't expect the kind of overhaul it really needs to happen unless its pushed to a crisis point.
 

devilhawk

Member
RubxQub said:
Doesn't it sound kind of inhuman to not want your fellow Americans to not have the right to be healthy?

"Fuck that guy, if he's poor, he deserves to die of heart disease because he can't pay for treatment."

"Don't give a shit if that guy lost his limb in a construction accident, if he can't pay, he has to live with the consequences."

...now I'm not necessarily for UHC, as I haven't read up on what it takes to get there and what the impact to society would be (financially), but isn't it a good idea, regardless of whether you think it financially makes sense or not?

Doesn't Barack's plan to not have UHC, but to make HC more affordable for everyone play as a happy medium to everyone, as well?

He wants to expand current gov plans. Everyone wants more affordable health care. Both sides want it. That's not a medium. The problem is how to get cheaper but better quality health care. Giving everyone health care isn't hard, it just won't fix any other problem and might make others worse.
 

Keylime

ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
devilhawk said:
He wants to expand current gov plans. Everyone wants more affordable health care. Both sides want it. That's not a medium. The problem is how to get cheaper but better quality health care. Giving everyone health care isn't hard, it just won't fix any other problem and might make others worse.
Do they, though?

I don't see how we could ever trust the healthcare industry to do what's best for the people (letting the free market handle the problem).

Seems to me that the extreme Repubs want nothing in place at all and the free market will eventually deliver a solid healthcare system. The extreme Dems want a government system where everyone has healthcare by default, but paid for by everyone, as well.
 

devilhawk

Member
Zefah said:
I agree that a lot of Americans are completely oblivious to how health insurance works and why they need it. It is definitely a problem, and I believe it is one problem that a comprehensive universal health care program will fix.

I see your argument that the research from American pharmaceutical companies benefits the world, but I am not sure if I am willing to accept that innovation will die off if regulations are implemented and research costs are subsidized. I am just speculating here, but if you are making an insane amount of money selling people drugs, wouldn't want them to keep coming back for more? If you were an evil son-of-a-bitch corporate head, wouldn't you want said drugs to be engineered in a way that keeps sick people (your customers) coming back for more? I have no evidence to back up my speculation, but I have a feeling that as long as the pharmaceutical industry is profit-driven the interests of the sick patient will never be the top priority.
The people in these companies are humans too believe it or not. Additionally, public research from universities have made numerous discoveries in medical chemistry and biotechnology fields. These are often funded by the government or private companies.

Why not say the same thing about your mechanic, plumber, or electrician. They don't have to fix anything. People spend their lives researching one disease or virus. The drugs and therapies that treat many aliments fund the R&D for the drugs that cure the hardest diseases. A hundred million people will have Alzheimer's in 40 years. Many more will have and die of cancer. This effects everyone and provides motivation outside of dollar signs for the company in that they and their relatives will be effected. With the high throughput of compounds tested for treatments and cures, the thought that companies don't want to put out cures is not possible.

Here's one of my favorite quotes, "Some people - however well intentioned they think they are - choose to stand in the way of human betterment. They don't want the paralyzed to walk, the cancer patient to thrive, the sick child to live and play. These people have their reasons for objecting. Religious, ethical, or even 'practical.' But whatever their reasons, they are on the side of death."
 

mclem

Member
the_zombie_luke said:
It really is disturbing that people believe that. The GOP doesn't even have to work that hard with their propaganda when some people believe everything they say, no matter how insane. Especially the "Obama is a terrorist" stuff. Someone with common sense should be able to say, "wait a minute! Objection! The GOP is lying!" :D

I think the quality of political discourse in the US would actually be *improved* if an impartial television program started to interview people with an interviewer who would be quite willing to yell "BULLSHIT!" in the interviewee's face at times.
 

Hootie

Member
They just showed a clip on Morning Joe of Palin being asked about specific things that would make her a strong candidate with regards to foreign policy, and she COMPLETELY dodged the question. I could barely listen to it :lol


Also, man I hate Tucker Carlson. "WAAAAAH the media hates LORD MCCAIN WAAAAAH Obama getting a free pass WAAAAAAH"
 

JayDubya

Banned
RubxQub said:
Doesn't it sound kind of inhuman to not want your fellow Americans to not have the right to be healthy?

Nope.


To be honest, healthcare is something I couldn't give a shit about (as I get it through my company), so it's not an issue I read about or research at all, so it's very possible I'm missing some key data here.

Yup.
 

Hootie

Member
BenjaminBirdie said:
WEEEOOOOOO
WEEEOOOOOO

*poll*


2z4cqz7.jpg


Berieve!!
 
Interesting stuff from Quinnie:

Change from August poll: Obama +2, McCain +3.
On taxes:
–51% say McCain’s proposed tax cut will benefit the rich, 9% say it will benefit the middle class, 1% say it will help the poor.
–9% say Obama’s proposed tax cut will benefit the rich, 33% say it will benefit the middle class, 22% say it will help the poor.

Among men: McCain 50, Obama 43
Among white voters: McCain 52, Obama 43
Among white Evangelical Christians: McCain 71, Obama 21 (McCain is +6 since August poll)
Among women: Obama 54, McCain 40
Among blacks: Obama 93, McCain 2
Among voters 18-34: Obama 57, McCain 37
Among voters 35-54: McCain 49, Obama 47
Among voters 55+: Obama 47, McCain 45
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
"Among voters 55+: Obama 47, McCain 45"

That's kind of backwards compared to most polling data out now.
hmm
 
Instigator said:
I'd like to meet those people in that 2%. They must be really special.

My father was a black Republican in the 80's and is generally more conservative than the average black dude although he liked Clinton. I haven't really asked who he is voting for this election and won't but I'm guessing it would be extremely hard for even him to pull the lever for Mccain over Obama.

That 2% is the Clarence Thomas wing of African Americans...
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
RubxQub said:
He's basically gone into "Not my problem!" mode. Kinda pathetic, but it's what we should have come to expect from this great, great man.
The republicans probably want him out of sight as much as possible, at least until november. They don't want to remind people of what a republican president looks like.
 

Cheebs

Member
Stoney Mason said:
My father was a black Republican in the 80's and is generally more conservative than the average black dude although he liked Clinton. I haven't really asked who he is voting for this election and won't but I'm guessing it would be extremely hard for even him to pull the lever for Mccain over Obama.

That 2% is the Clarence Thomas wing of African Americans...
Well to be fair that was the 80's, A ton of Democrats white and black voted Reagan.
 

SSGMUN10000

Connoisseur Of Tedium
Wow I just heard that question about foreign policy specifics that Palin was given at a town hall. Her answer was that she was confident and prepared. She completely dodge the question. *shakes head*
 

DenogginizerOS

BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
GhaleonEB said:
It's almost identical in content to the CNN piece, but NBC news just demolished Palin as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26759502#26759502
They ran that report on the Today show this morning. Conservative Bill Bennett came on and dismissed the report as "small beer".

Denial is not a river in Egypt folks. Don't believe McCain. They are flat out lying and we don't need a "Brownie" trying to do a great job as Vice President if McCain gets sick or dies.
 

Barrett2

Member
Instigator said:
I'd like to meet those people in that 2%. They must be really special.


There is a black girl in one of my classes who says she is a Republican & McCain supporter. My brain could barely compute what she was saying.

I know that it is unrealistic to think blacks, or any group, will vote purely based on identity politics. But still, I can't help but think that if you are a black American, and after all this time you finally have a chance to vote for a black President, but you don't because you think he will 'raise your taxes,' what the fuck is wrong with you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom