Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?

[Roger Wilco]

And how do you know that your symptoms even remotely resembled Marc's? Doctors are right more often than they are wrong, so chances are that if you had been Australian, the doctors would have recognised your illness immediately and taken appropriate steps to save your life.

Marc had to wait because his doctor decided that whatever illness he had, wasn't so serious that waiting a couple months were a problem. If it had been more serious I'm confident he would not have had to wait so long for treatment.

 

[Arrqh]

I wouldn't have been able to wait that long.

And you wouldn't have had to. Obviously, Marc is still alive and reasonably healthy so that wait wasn't a problem.

How do you know? He did have to wait a month or so. Had I had the initial wait he did I would have been in BIG trouble. My heart was failing and I didn't know it. But because I saw both kinds of specialists within days or a week of each other it was caught.

Your chain of events started when you had a stroke. That is a serious medical event. In a country with UHC, seriously medical events are treated and dealt with quickly just like the US. The difference is no one will go bankrupt as a result of staying alive.

Your timeline doesn't even suggest that you'd be in big trouble. It took you seven months after your stroke before you went in for surgery because you were stable. Doctors in Canada are perfectly capable of making the same sorts of calls as those in the US for determining who can wait... like you did... and who needs something immediately because their life is in immediate danger. For you to say otherwise is to suggest that doctors in UHC countries are incompetent, which clearly is not the case due to for instance the fact that most UHC countries have higher life expectancies then the US.

 

[Galactus]

As much as I am loathe to say it, I would much rather have a UHC/government provided system of health care.

Then the Republicans shouldn't have acted like spoiled children for us to get this crappy bill that we have. That is what honest debate really is.

They're not the ones with the 60 votes.

They wouldn't have needed the 60 votes if the Republicans wouldn't have forced their members to try and filibuster to prevent an honest vote. Once they did that then the Democrats had to do everything themselves. That was just petty and childish. So instead of real reform you end up with this. You can thank Rush, Palin, and the Tea Parties for this bad bill, since they made it political suicide for any Republicans to support the bill, even they they all supported the Medicare prescription thing which was a lot worse than this thing.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

What else would "access" mean?

I have "access" to the BMW dealership. I can't afford a BMW, but no one is trying to stop me from buying one if I have the cash to do it.

Just admit that when you guys say "access" you really mean you want health care to be provided, period.

I'm ok with that, and it's honest.

First of all, "us guys" didn't say access, he did, so it's kind of hard for us to be dishonest about something we never said.

I have absolutely no problem with saying that I want health care to be provided as an option to everyone free of charge (excepting paying your taxes of course), and that is precisely what I would mean by giving everyone access if I were to use that word.

You know exactly what people mean by it, so the pedantry is unnecessary.

 

[Chaos Descending]

@ 12 Days of Locutus:

Why on Earth did you think I was talking to you?

@ Joy to the World:

Filibuster or not, the Democrats ought to be able to pass anything they please, since they have the numbers.

The problem is that not ALL the Democrats are on board with the plan, and so for some Democrats to appease other Democrats, you guys had to butcher, hack, and gut the bill into something awful.

The Republicans had nothing to do with it, because their lack of cooperation was assured from the start.

 

[Daedalus12]

All I want to say about this bill is damn that Wickard vs Filburn.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

What else would "access" mean?

I have "access" to the BMW dealership. I can't afford a BMW, but no one is trying to stop me from buying one if I have the cash to do it.

Just admit that when you guys say "access" you really mean you want health care to be provided, period.

I'm ok with that, and it's honest.

First of all, "us guys" didn't say access, he did, so it's kind of hard for us to be dishonest about something we never said.

I have absolutely no problem with saying that I want health care to be provided as an option to everyone free of charge (excepting paying your taxes of course), and that is precisely what I would mean by giving everyone access if I were to use that word.

You know exactly what people mean by it, so the pedantry is unnecessary.

The problem with that is that not everyone will be paying taxes. If everyone were paying taxes in an equal amount I might actually be on board with this. Only if it were not managed by government bureaucrats, of course.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Then the Republicans shouldn't have acted like spoiled children for us to get this crappy bill that we have. That is what honest debate really is.

They're not the ones with the 60 votes.

They wouldn't have needed the 60 votes if the Republicans wouldn't have forced their members to try and filibuster to prevent an honest vote. Once they did that then the Democrats had to do everything themselves. That was just petty and childish. So instead of real reform you end up with this. You can thank Rush, Palin, and the Tea Parties for this bad bill, since they made it political suicide for any Republicans to support the bill, even they they all supported the Medicare prescription thing which was a lot worse than this thing.

That's a classic post. You can't get your party to agree on something so you blame the other party, as well as people who are not casting a vote in the process. Anyone but the people who actually can pass whatever they want.

 

[Misfit Toy]

They're not the ones with the 60 votes.

They wouldn't have needed the 60 votes if the Republicans wouldn't have forced their members to try and filibuster to prevent an honest vote. Once they did that then the Democrats had to do everything themselves. That was just petty and childish. So instead of real reform you end up with this. You can thank Rush, Palin, and the Tea Parties for this bad bill, since they made it political suicide for any Republicans to support the bill, even they they all supported the Medicare prescription thing which was a lot worse than this thing.

That's a classic post. You can't get your party to agree on something so you blame the other party, as well as people who are not casting a vote in the process. Anyone but the people who actually can pass whatever they want.

You didn't care for obstructionism when the other party was in power - why is that?

 

[Roger Wilco]

That's a classic post. You can't get your party to agree on something so you blame the other party, as well as people who are not casting a vote in the process. Anyone but the people who actually can pass whatever they want.

And would it kill one party to support a bill that's good for the country regardless of who benefits politically?

 

[TheLonelySquire]

That's a classic post. You can't get your party to agree on something so you blame the other party, as well as people who are not casting a vote in the process. Anyone but the people who actually can pass whatever they want.

And would it kill one party to support a bill that's good for the country regardless of who benefits politically?

No, it wouldn't. Present a bill that's good for the country and I'll advocate it. IMO, this isn't it.

 

[Roger Wilco]

There's no bill presented by any Democrat you would have supported imo.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

There's no bill presented by any Democrat you would have supported imo.

It may surprise you to know that I worked for the democrats at one point. Presidential campaign as a matter of fact. So maybe I can be swayed?

 

[Marc]

And how do you know that your symptoms even remotely resembled Marc's? Doctors are right more often than they are wrong, so chances are that if you had been Australian, the doctors would have recognised your illness immediately and taken appropriate steps to save your life.

Marc had to wait because his doctor decided that whatever illness he had, wasn't so serious that waiting a couple months were a problem. If it had been more serious I'm confident he would not have had to wait so long for treatment.

Excatly. My BP is generall under control through medication and the doctor was doing some routine stuff to make sure there was no major underlying issues waiting to be detected.

Now had there being something major detected then things would of speed up. In ryan's case - he has a known condition but in my case there was no known pre-existing condition and I was generally in good health.

Perhaps some other Americans can enlighten us to the sort of response times to get in an see specialists for initial diagnosis.

I know of one TNZ who I believe has health cover but it still took 6 months for him to be able to get in for a standard GP consult.

And I also don't decry other people's access to health care while the tab for my own is being picked up by others.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I fully and openly support a single-payer system with medical care for all citizens and permanent residents. I'll take as close to that as I can get--forced insurance purchase, public option, whatever.

 

[Galactus]

That's a classic post. You can't get your party to agree on something so you blame the other party, as well as people who are not casting a vote in the process. Anyone but the people who actually can pass whatever they want.

Everyone is free to agree or disagree as they like, the problem is that the Senate has that stupid filibuster rule that neither party will get rid of because they are all power crazy. This goes to all of the Senators, if they would just grown up and just let people vote honestly then we would have a good bill that would be good for the country. Instead you have to make all these deals with 6 people that are DINO's in Republican states. So yes it is the 100 Senators fault that we have this crappy bill. Unlike a lot of people here I hold them all accountable for this mess, but I hold the people more responsible. When people really want change they will get off their butts and get change, until then they deserve what they get. It is just too bad I and others like me have to suffer until then.

 

[CaptainStoner]

^ this is true, the filibuster really must go.

 

[Gertch]

I fully and openly support a single-payer system with medical care for all citizens and permanent residents. I'll take as close to that as I can get--forced insurance purchase, public option, whatever.

There are some very very nice countries that have that already. Which one looks good to move to?

It wont work here. Most Americans are used to EARNING what they have. What good does it do a person to hand them everything? None, it's always detrimental.

 

[Galactus]

I am all for that. Let's make everyone work for what they get. No loop holes, no special treatment, no buying your way out of anything. Let's make everyone work for what they get and what they have. Wonder which group would survive that.

 

[Gertch]

Group? I'd say the achievers as they have for years. After a while more and more people will become achievers as they decide to be winners.