While some conservatives claim that Obama wants to kill your granny I hesitate to accept that as Obamas sole reason for pushing the health care reform.
From the private insurers point of view it makes perfect sense to oppose the reform ... if they didn't, they'd face an immense decline in profits if either the government option provides better care or if regulations bar insurers from avoiding costs by their current methods.
But it's a bit too simplicistic to merely claim that one party acts out of altruism (or a loathing of old ladies) and the other out of greed.
So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?
(Note that I don't ask you what you think is the better solution.)
Pro (Motives of the health care reform advocates):
Con (Motives of the health care reform opponents):
Two key issues that make the health care reform necessary in the eyes of the proponents are quailty and cost.
Quality has been discussed to death and information (and misinformation) is freely available.
Cost is harder to estimate - one simply can't understand what estimated costs of trillions of dollars over decades means for your paycheck. So I started a different thread where I want to compare the personal average cost of health care in different countries.
For example: German average gross income is about €2,500. After deductions (including health insurance) a single person without kids gets to keep about €1,500.
And what can germans do with that money in germany? Why, buy beer, of course. €1,500 get you 1,200 litre of high quality Pilsener beer - twice as much if you don't care about quality and go for the cheap labels.
Health care costs: €185 per month (currently $264)
Cheers!
Why not? I enjoyed myself at least as much doing that as I would have watching TV or playing a game, and as a side benefit several people became more educated on copyright law. That you find this laughable is something I find truly sad. Although it does explain some of your goofball attitudes, you've never seriously discussed them with others.
I didn't realize that your presence here was so beneficial. I apologize for mocking your devotion to condescending to those who do not share your perspective of the world.
And that sort of thing is why I don't feel you to be worth my time debating. To you it's simply a way to rile and annoy people anonymously.
Doesn't seem like that much of a goal to go from the most expensive system in the world to the 2nd most expensive system, but I still grant that would be an improvement. Personally I would choose France's system if only because it would piss you off.
It's more the fact that you pretty much ignored anything that wasn't opinionated completely.
You said it's hard to debate someone with no courtesy. Tell me, how is that sarcastic post courteus? Surely you want to be above your opponents on the courtesy scale?
Finally, if you believed what you were saying so much, wouldn't you have a response? If I read something I don't agree with, I usually think: "well that's not true, because..." or "hmm, I never looked at it that way," or "he does make a good point here." I never think "I don't agree with him, but I can't prove him wrong, so I'll just find one little thing he says that I can attack."
I guess that's just me.
There is no place where winning an argument is more like winning special olympics than here. There really is no point in discussing anything at all and so I usually don't waste my breath.
The only possible benefit of trying to argue logically is to indicate to any possible open minded lurkers (if one such person exists I'd be surprised) that the discussion is not unanimous in one direction.
But again, really whats the point? When in rome do as the romans do. Nitpick a picayune point ignoring the paragraphs of logic that preceded it. You can laugh to yourself about how much fruitless effort someone put into a post only to have it totally glossed over by some non sequitur. Just don't be foolish enough to waste your time caring what anyone says or trying to convince them that their point of view is not necessarily the only view that a reasonable person may hold. If nothing else pick on a typo and criticise their spelling.
I'm fine with the fact that people hold different views and opinions. What I'm not fine with is when everyone else's opinions are fact and your facts are not only opinions but incorrect opinions that no reasonable person has a right to hold.
If you're looking for any kind of acknowledgemet that your point of view may have some validity even though others may not share it then you better go look somewhere else because you won't find that here.
Aroddo - Your avatar is spookily appropriate. Slight modification here & there, BO could use it.
...
Wow... I'm away for a few days and suddenly someone released the shitstorm.
Can't you all argue like gentlemen?
P.S. Thats hilarious, but probably out context.
This works outside of Joe User, too. It's common rhetoric especially in american lobbyism.
This scene probably explains 90% of all "discussions" you see on the more biased TV shows.
The movie should automatically start at 8:40.
what I would also be interested in: what are normal amounts that americans spend for their health care schemes per month? what kind of service would you get for that? I mean I can say it is around 11% of your wage here, a bit less in germany. so, if you take a relatively normal income of 2.500€ per month, health care would cost you in the vicinity of 250€. that's probably more than you guys pay in the us, no?
Decent health insurance for a family if you can get into a good sized "group" is $1200 per month. The same coverage is $1600 per month if it's a small group and probably closer to $1800 for no group at all.
This is good coverage but not the best. Per visit copays are $20, there's a $1000 yearly per person deductible usually with a $2000 cap per family. Perscriptions are $10 for generics, $20 for for preferred drugs and $30 for non preferred drugs.
There are cheaper plans with higher copays and deductibles and more expensive plans with lower copays and deductibles.
In fact Americans for Prosperity originally started out as a tobacco astroturf organization.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity
?! that's freaking neck breaking! and ppl are content with that? I mean barring very high incomes that's a pretty sizable chunk of your income I'd say.
No, we pay far more than that.Decent health insurance for a family if you can get into a good sized "group" is $1200 per month. The same coverage is $1600 per month if it's a small group and probably closer to $1800 for no group at all.This is good coverage but not the best. Per visit copays are $20, there's a $1000 yearly per person deductible usually with a $2000 cap per family. Perscriptions are $10 for generics, $20 for for preferred drugs and $30 for non preferred drugs.There are cheaper plans with higher copays and deductibles and more expensive plans with lower copays and deductibles.
$1800 per month for health insurance if you live single ??????
What kind of income do you americans get ??? And I mean the average american (whatever that is).
You guys must be freaking rich compared to us if you can afford health care.
Some plans also have a subscriber plus one plan for married couples without children and you can usually save about $100 a month if that's an option. I have no kids and so I would take this option if I could but it's not available to me in my small group. Note the huge difference based on the size of your group. $1200 to $1800 is an additional 50% if you can't get into a good sized group.
Also note that health insurance can be setup to be paid as pretax money which is effectively a 33% savings at my tax rate, but this option is usually not available in individual coverage.
It does seem most folks outside the US don't understand the concept of group coverage. Basically you get a volume discount based on how many people are being insured by the same entity. This is usually your employer who may (or may not) pay a portion of your health insurance premium. If so then you usually get paid less to compensate. In reality the employee pays for their own insurance one way or another. But if you work for a large employer you get cheaper insurance than if you work for a small employer and even cheaper still than if you're self employed and have to get individual coverage.
Individual coverage means that you are not part of any group. Single coverage means that you're insuring only yourself.
so group effectively means employer or possibly a group of companies that banded together as a group. so why is it less expensive for larger firms? it does not make any spontaneous sense to me, but surely someone somewhere had a reason for it.
also the possiblity of setting it up as pre-tax money deducted sounds interesting.
on the whole though it does seem a bit more expense than the systems here. I'd have to check our details again, but there is definately an upper floor beyond which you pay only a fixed amount regardless of income and there should be some modifications at the lower end too to make it more affordable. that said, average income is a bit higher in the US than in most euro countries, I think some 40k $ to some 32k$, but those numbers are out there to check.
and you are not quite correct. it's not that I don't understand the concept of group coverage, I just don't think I ever heard of it. barring a convincing explanation and reasoning I also say that it's a pretty weird and pointless construct, but let's see.
It all depends on where you live. If I made $50,000 a year living where I currently live I would essentially be at the poverty level. However someone making $50,000 in some rural area, let's say somewhere in Kansas, would be considered very well off. However the same job will pay more in a high cost of living area than in a lower cost of living area. It's all relative.
In my area the threshold for making a decent living is probably $100,000 per year. But you can get this with one high income earner or two medium income earners. This is essentially what has happened to the middle class in the US. Both husband and wife usually must work to come close to a decent standard of living and if one or the other loses their job then they can quickly get seriously in debt.
If I had to guess healthcare expenses for the "average" american worker are probably close to 20% of their income. But like I said this is just a guess.
Hmm ... I have to look up how exactly family insurance works in germany. Kids usually get to benefit from the parents health insurance automatically as long as they are living at home and never had to pay for insurance themselves (so something like that).
But I think every adult is treated individualy with the public insurance (which is mandatory unless you can afford private insurance, btw).
However, I started a new thread here:
I started with picking apart german income and deductibles to demonstrate how much health care costs us as a person.
I'd like to get data from other countries for comparison.
I quote this, too, solely to highlight its comic value (and irony).
Aroddo -
That was an observation, not an accusation.
This is an incredible self-contradiction.
What, no one comments on the cost of health care?
I even supplied a perfectly representive example for personal health care cost and the worth of the money in relation to national product costs - yet no comment apart from pointless bitching?
The August 20th Daily Show Interview covers cost on a limited scale, but mostly covers the "death panel" debate. Clips are a little broken up, so to watch the entire interview, scroll down to the part 1 interview and then do the part 1 and 2 at the top.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
At the beginning of the Part 1 at the top, Stewart reads the controversial passage, lets McCaughey respond, and then says she has it completely misinterpreted. After relistening to the passage (Stewart reads it a little fast) I realized that McCaughy interpretation is fairly unrelated. The passage relates to the secretary's relation to the data of measures such as "orders and adherence to life-sustaining measures."
How can she then talk about forcing doctors to put pressure on patients? What?
Another kicker in the interview was the beginning of Part 2 at the top. The first comments are in reference to Obama's desired cuts to Medicare to tone the exponential growth down a bit. After referring to how Reagan said Medicare (which they both agreed was a good system) was going to create socialism, Stewart then asks if McCaughey ernestly believed that those in the government wanted to kill your grandparents. She said yes.
So can someone please explain to me why people in government want to kill your grandma?
PS. A recent poll showed that 45% of Americans believe that the bill creates a "death panel."
There are certainly disparity in the kinds of people that tend to hang out at Stardock's different sites. Basically I avoid posting to threads that exist only on Joe User because I've found that in general I don't particularly care to associate with most folks there. I will make an exception in limited circumstances but it's more the exception that proves the rule.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
