This isn't just about "abuse" of ERs. This is about people who have no choice but to wait until their medical condition is bad enough to go to the ER instead of having problems taken care of early when they come up. Emergency care is much more expensive, time consuming and resource consuming then ordinary preventative care. And this is a primary casual factor as to why health care in the US is so expensive... everyone who has insurance is already shouldering the burden of the cost of care for the uninsured in the most inefficient way possible.
Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?
- Thread starter TheLonelySquire
- Start date
This isn't just about "abuse" of ERs. This is about people who have no choice but to wait until their medical condition is bad enough to go to the ER instead of having problems taken care of early when they come up. Emergency care is much more expensive, time consuming and resource consuming then ordinary preventative care. And this is a primary casual factor as to why health care in the US is so expensive... everyone who has insurance is already shouldering the burden of the cost of care for the uninsured in the most inefficient way possible.
So will the demand for doctors go up, go down, or stay the same if everyone had coverage?
How do you know how big the effect would be? We'd have to talk numbers first.
How high would the gas tax have to be raised to pay for all of the roads and whatnot? I doubt it would raise the price of gas by more than a few cents a gallon.
We had gas as high as $4.50 a gallon a year and a half ago and the world didn't end.
I would imagine demand for emergency services would go down and general services to go up. Certainly there would be an adjustment period, but so what? Should we not implement a solution that will lower costs and increase care significantly in the long term because it would take some adjustment?
This seems logical.
When did it become bad to examine the ramifications of a decision? I don't like to leap before I look.
Does anyone actually have to ask this? It baffles me that this even requires an answer. I'd be insulted by the implication, but then I remember where I am.
In short, "no, of course not".
But what we should do is make sure that the solution actually does address the problem, and doesn't actually cause more problems than it solves.
There's plenty to indicate that the current plan on the table is NOT a solution to the problem, unless the problem statement is really, "Insurance Company revenue is too low". I'm no fan of corporate welfare.
Well sure. But we know that in the case of UHC, it does address the problem and we can get that by doing a full comparison between healthcare in the US and in other countries.
With the plan that's on the table, it's probably several pages behind us now, but I agree the current solution does not address the issues sufficiently. But the main reason for that is that UHC is for various reasons currently politically untenable.
I guess from my point of view, I don't want to pass a "bad" bill just because they can't pass a "good" bill.
But that's the whole point. This is the Progressives Holy Grail and it's coming up on 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform in 1912 that they've tried to make it a reality.
All that matters is they can say the US has UHC. It doesn't matter to them what it looks like on the other side. It doesn't matter how much it'll cost or that it'll bankrupt the nation. That's the problem with conservatives. They don't like to leap without looking. But, as one, I'm just a selfish bastard.
Do you think that the Civil Rights bill was perfect? It took years and plenty of modifications AFTER it was signed before it actually took the form that we see today. The lawmakers at that time passed what they could, knowing they would work on it, shape it, in the following years. How about a bill I know you liked - the Patriot Act. How many modifications did that take, after it was signed?
No but it would of given the inflation figure a kick in the nuts and there would of been rises in prices. I had a notification at the time from a supplier that freight costs had gone up because the freight companies were charging more because the cost of fuel had gone up.
Factor in it long term and there will be a most decided impact.
The would be some increase in the demand for doctors but with preventative care, it would greatly reduce the demand on emergency services because a) people wouldn't' go the ER when they could got the GP (it's been pointed out elsewhere that often a $100 GP visit won't be covered but they will cover at $500 E.R visit) and b) it would help prevent conditions reaching the point where people need to visit the hospital.
Plus as people wouldn't be visiting expensive ERs the costs will come down greatly.
That is like the German system. It seems to work there.
I like our NHS in the UK.
I like our NHS in the UK.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Do you believe the Patriot Act was passed in order to solidify a voting block? Because that's what this bill is all about. In my opinion, of course.
Of course, you're wrong.
Liked that one? I'm sorry but I don't believe you.
A bill that will usurp control of 1/5th of the US economy should be hashed out beforehand. It should be debated openly in public forums and televised on TV. Not pushed through slapdash by partisan votes after not allowing the public to read the bill or CBO report. It's like this whole bad movie was written by some felon in prison.
No, these huge 2000+ page bills that Obama's cronies make up and push through regardless of public opinion aren't about fixing anything. Just about grabbing power by increasing the size of government.
Pretty much everything you've said in this thread can be boiled down to "liberals are bad/antiamerican/should leave the country." Do you think this is productive?
This is true. When you stop and really think about it, the whole "American Dream, land of the free" thing is an oxymoron, but I still thought it was worth pointing out.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
Maybe I'm tired or something but what?
They took a major leap in the Iraq War and completely missed their mark. They decided to focus on Iran when they should have focused on North Korea. They do leap without looking first.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
If you want to talk about inflation then open another thread.
'Bankrupt the nation'?
You may have no confidence in your own country, but I don't believe for a second that your country is actually to stupid to implement UHC.
It's... baffling to me that those who pontificate about the greatness of America, the Exceptionalism of America the most are also the ones who think the US are incapable of making UHC work financially. Especially considering that smaller, economically weaker countries can make it work just fine.
But it is indeed a declaration of bankruptcy (the German Bankrotterklärung sounds better) that, after 100 years of debate, you still haven't got what every other western country sees as a societal necessity.
Last edited:
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Mhmm, you mean the bill that was available to read on the internet?
Do you mean those town hall meetings all over your country?
Do you mean the constant debate on TV, radio and the internet?
Yeah, all that never happened.
