US Health care reforms

[Dnarag1M]

And you don't have to.  The tax payers would simply pay for it.  Of course I"m against that as well, and I'm all with Archimonday on moving medicare/medicaid into a private industry/like sector which turns a profit which in turn is put towards free healthcare for those who don't have healthcare but occasionaly, rarely, need help. 

So if I may understand correctly you do not want to take up your personal responsibilities, but rather let the government, hospitals, or other people around you pay for your financial unwillingness ? Sorry, that is a form of indirect theft and a very egoistic thing to do. bah....

[Archimonday]

I think you miss understand Mudra though. He doesn't want healthcare because he doesn't need it. However I feel as though if Mudra found himself in a situation where an accident, or some chronic condition put him in a position where he continually needed it, he would pay for it.

[hslan.Corvax]

Still, if he only payed it when he needed it, he still would finance only a fraction of a costly treatment. in example, you have an accident where the treatment costs you 200k $, he starts to pay (i don't know how much it is so i make up a number) 200 $ a month for lets say a year because he got better and didn't need it anymore. He then payed 2400$, and the other 176k$ has to be payed by others. And that is very egoistic in my opinion.

You have to pay in advance, and in case something serious happens, you invested enough money to get your expensive treatment with a good conscience. If nothing happens, well, than you helped others, just like they would have helped you when the money you payed was less then the treatment would have costed.

[[130.Pz]I.Kluge]

Ummmm, you realize that emergency care is REQUIRED to be treated, even if I don't have healthcare, right?

Afterwards they can either discharge you (If the hospital's insurance can't cover you.) or keep you and drive up your dept.
Eitherway you are gonna pay in full for treatment, medication, and operation.

Annnnddd if that happened, its against the law and those doctors who did would be held on homicide.

You have to sign a waiver either before or after the operation.

[THeTA0123]

We have in Belgium one of the best Health care's in the world (together with Holland and Scandinavia)

If you get sick here, you wont be ruined

I honestly DO not see the reason why people are against this.
The guys that where against it, where probaly the rich

Because the poor get better of this, and the rich a little less poorer

[[130.Pz]S.Tiemann]

But you seem to misunderstand our system. While your Democracies may have the power to remove whoever they want, whenever they want, our system must wait for election day, and voters don't get to remove Generals, or Admirals.

Add in the fact that our entire government is run by wealthy men, and you get a situation where the American people are helpless.

Surely there is a mechanizim for removing someone in a position of power besides elections, you must be missing something because that is a crucial part of democracies.

[Paasky]

Because the poor get better of this, and the rich a little less poorer

And god forbid we make the rich only be able to buy 5 lambo's instead of the 6 they could buy



The amount of selfishness some americans have sickens me.
"What should we do about the 30 million uninsured"
- "They shouldn't be so lazy"





Why even insure anyone? Just treat people, take their name & social security number, and send (most of) the bill to the government. It works perfectly fine. If you want, you can get a separate insurance and go to the private hospitals/clinics. But those who can't afford it could actually get healed instead of patched up & thrown back into the streets.

Ah well, at least insuring everyone & preventing denials due to pre-existing conditions is a step in the right direction.

[Zoologic]

I think that's because most Americans just consider their government... be it Republican or Democrats = stupid, inefficient, inept, or simply incompetent enough to handle such business.

They think (every American rejecting the bill), they can make better investment out of their USD 200 per month than the government.

And talking about generic medicine, 3 out of 10 of my friends are doctors, and they are not only studying in 3rd country universities and have repeatedly talked about this issue. But i guess Lobo is also competent to say something on this one.

Well, to say generic medicine is inferior is completely nonsense and pretty ignorant. Probably the same level of ignorance as to say that M26 Pershing saw action in Normandy because it is in the game CoH and it looks cool and even cooler for American players who keep getting bullied by their German enemies' better tanks.

Brand name medicine looks good and cooler because people who can afford it never tries any other stuff besides that. So here is the story: One day my friend treated a seemingly able patient. When he prescribed the drug, the patient asked about the price of drug, expecting it to be very expensive (as how she always knew about it). When he answered that the drug only cost about IDR 125 (less than USD 1 cent) per tablet, she was completely shocked. So, in doubt, she asked for "better drugs" and started joking about shitty generic drugs and stuff. In response, my friend opened another prescription, this time for a branded drugs which cost IDR 60,000 (about USD 6.50) and told her that it is IDR 125,000. She gladly accepted it.

My friend told me that this kind of patient usually appear three to four times per day, and he doesn't have any qualms of making money out of idiotic, smartass, selfish rich people. The money will both support the corporations who make the drugs and himself.

Actually we Indonesians pay taxes and the government subsidized the generic drugs for poor people (who can't and don't pay taxes) so they can afford it. So, it is okay for the rich who pay taxes to enjoy the cheap drug too, since they paid for it. However, there are a lot of stories about generic drugs being ineffective and fail to cure the poor bastards. But that mostly because many poor people here are illiterate and consume the wrong dose, or living in non-sanitized environment, or just can't afford enough food (the drug is very cheap that we don't have such small currency to make the change). So the drug being shitty is purely out of the factors there.

[Oddball]

^ but that is no evidence that generic drugs aren't inferior to name brand drugs, since the person only bought the name brand drugs, and never tried the generic drugs. If they did, and they worked the same as the name brand drugs, then you could say they are equal, but they arn't. In order for it to be a generic drug, it can't contain the same substances as the name brand ones, or else it would be stealing a patent. The alternations DO make a difference. I too would rather pay the ~ $13.00 USD an individual pill and get the proper treatment then then and have to return for more treatment. It's not idiocy, and not being selfish, if they can afford the supperior subscription, then why not go for it? They became a brand name somehow...i'm sure it's not for not working, or else tey still probably would exist. Generics survive because it's the only thing the poor can get.. and if it helps a little, then they'll take it.

P.S. I don't understand why you guys have such a quarrel with the rich. Yes, not all of them got it honestly and those ones are indeed frowned upon, however there are a lot of rich that worked hard for their money, and there is no reason why they should have to distribute it the way some see fit, especially for abusers of the system; such as illegal aliens who have NO entitlement to ANY benefits offered by the United States. It's their money and they have the right to spend it as they please, so what if they think they need 6 lambos and can pay for their health care out of their pocket? It's not costing anyone else. Besides, most probably have insurance which goes to help out others, and a good majority of rich donate to charities, so they arn't as selfish as you make them out to be.

[Eat Uranium]

^ but that is no evidence that generic drugs aren't inferior to name brand drugs, since the person only bought the name brand drugs, and never tried the generic drugs. If they did, and they worked the same as the name brand drugs, then you could say they are equal, but they arn't. In order for it to be a generic drug, it can't contain the same substances as the name brand ones, or else it would be stealing a patent. The alternations DO make a difference. I too would rather pay the ~ $13.00 USD an individual pill and get the proper treatment then then and have to return for more treatment. It's not idiocy, and not being selfish, if they can afford the supperior subscription, then why not go for it? They became a brand name somehow...i'm sure it's not for not working, or else tey still probably would exist. Generics survive because it's the only thing the poor can get.. and if it helps a little, then they'll take it.

A fallacy I think.

Generics contain the same active ingredients as the brand drugs.  However, you only find generic versions of brand drugs that have outlived their rather short patent.  Thats why brand drugs are so expensive, because they have only a few years to get back all the money they spent on development before the cheaper alternatives come along.

[Paasky]

Dude... I don't know how it's over there, but here in the United European Socialist Republics anything that is sold in pharmacies has to pass rigorous testing. Meaning any generic drug has to work exactly like the original counterpart.

To put it in computer terms: Generic DDR memory works exactly the same as Kingston DDR memory. They are both guaranteed to work exactly the same. Yet people buy Kingston for double the price. They buy the brand, and feel good inside because of it. This is human nature, nothing wrong with that.

-------------------------

"that is no evidence that generic drugs aren't inferior to name brand drugs"

Silly argument. That's like me saying potatoes in deep space start to breed pixies. No one has sent potatoes into deep space so you can't prove me wrong!

-------------------------

"abusers of the system; such as illegal aliens who have NO entitlement to ANY benefits offered"

How can you abuse the system if the system doesn't give you anything?

-------------------------

"if they think they need 6 lambos and can pay for their health care out of their pocket? It's not costing anyone else."

It's costing to the poor mom's kid who can't get his diabetes medication because his mother can't afford it, and the rich bastard thinks his 6th lambo is more important.

Okay, that was a bad and simplified way of putting it, but I guess you get the jist of it.



I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of rich folk give enough to the charity to avoid paying extra taxes.

I don't have a problem with the rich per se, just with those who have so much money they have to be creative on how to spend it. I'd absolutely LOVE to have a 100 000 € Aston Martini. Or meet someone who has one. But if I could go to the shop and say I want one for every day of the week, I clearly have too much money.


If that makes me a communist who wants to pull the plug on grandma and dance around her corpse, maybe I am.

[Oddball]

^ but that is no evidence that generic drugs aren't inferior to name brand drugs, since the person only bought the name brand drugs, and never tried the generic drugs. If they did, and they worked the same as the name brand drugs, then you could say they are equal, but they arn't. In order for it to be a generic drug, it can't contain the same substances as the name brand ones, or else it would be stealing a patent. The alternations DO make a difference. I too would rather pay the ~ $13.00 USD an individual pill and get the proper treatment then then and have to return for more treatment. It's not idiocy, and not being selfish, if they can afford the supperior subscription, then why not go for it? They became a brand name somehow...i'm sure it's not for not working, or else tey still probably would exist. Generics survive because it's the only thing the poor can get.. and if it helps a little, then they'll take it.

A fallacy I think.

Generics contain the same active ingredients as the brand drugs.  However, you only find generic versions of brand drugs that have outlived their rather short patent.  Thats why brand drugs are so expensive, because they have only a few years to get back all the money they spent on development before the cheaper alternatives come along.

No myth. Patents are renewable also....so I don't see how that can hold ture.  Anyways... here is an excerpt from an Article from the New York Times, dated December 18, 2009.
"There is a gnawing concern among some doctors and researchers that certain prescription generic drugs may not work as well as their brand-name counterparts. The problem is not pervasive, but it’s something consumers should be aware of — especially now that more insurers insist on patients’ taking generic medications when they are available.

Joe Graedon, who has been writing about pharmaceuticals for three decades and runs the consumer advocacy Web site The People’s Pharmacy, was 100 percent behind generics for many years. “We were the country’s leading generic enthusiasts,” he told me recently. But over the past eight or nine years, Mr. Graedon began hearing about “misadventures” from people who read his syndicated newspaper column, also called The People’s Pharmacy. “The stories were compelling,” he said “and hard to dismiss.”

The stories were typically from patients who were switched from a brand-name drug to a generic one and had side effects or found that their symptoms returned — or even became worse than before they were medicated."

[Rawhide]

The more and more I look at this I gotta go with Obama and agree that this vote is a victory for both the public but also the common sense

[Oddball]

Dude... I don't know how it's over there, but here in the United European Socialist Republics anything that is sold in pharmacies has to pass rigorous testing. Meaning any generic drug has to work exactly like the original counterpart.

To put it in computer terms: Generic DDR memory works exactly the same as Kingston DDR memory. They are both guaranteed to work exactly the same. Yet people buy Kingston for double the price. They buy the brand, and feel good inside because of it. This is human nature, nothing wrong with that.

-------------------------

"that is no evidence that generic drugs aren't inferior to name brand drugs"

Silly argument. That's like me saying potatoes in deep space start to breed pixies. No one has sent potatoes into deep space so you can't prove me wrong!

I guess what i'm saying is you had nothing to compare the control to, therefore it wasn't a complete experiment, the generic medicine (individual variable) was not included, so you can't draw valid conclusions from that 'story'.

-------------------------

"abusers of the system; such as illegal aliens who have NO entitlement to ANY benefits offered"

How can you abuse the system if the system doesn't give you anything?
Sorry, but yes they do. They recieve the money that should be going to hardworking families that have trouble supporting their family, for whatever reason, sorry..but I don't feel sorry for all of them; like the irresponsible ones, and as mentioned before, if they go to a hospital because of some emergancy they have, they CAN'T be denied coverage, paid by our tax payers! those arn't benefits, especially when they don't even contribute to those taxes.
-------------------------

"if they think they need 6 lambos and can pay for their health care out of their pocket? It's not costing anyone else."

It's costing to the poor mom's kid who can't get his diabetes medication because his mother can't afford it, and the rich bastard thinks his 6th lambo is more important.

Okay, that was a bad and simplified way of putting it, but I guess you get the jist of it.

Okay, but that still still doesn't make it the fault of the guy with 6 lambos. He has a life to live to, it's not his responsibility to care for the enitre popuation because he's rich. Yes, it might be a nice gesture or the decent thing to do, but he doesn't have to. Perhaps he's unaware of the childs problems....or maybe he is and that is why he donated $100,000 to the cancer (or someothere foundation) charity annually. Don't be so quck to talk shit about the guy before you know everything he does, just because he has 6 lambos doesn't mean he can't find extra cash for donating...Unless your trying to say he should then donate more because he isn't poor enough yet where he can only buy one lambo like he should have. Who is to say how he should spend his money, or how many lambos he should own. Personal freedom.

I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of rich folk give enough to the charity to avoid paying extra taxes.

I don't have a problem with the rich per se, just with those who have so much money they have to be creative on how to spend it. I'd absolutely LOVE to have a 100 000 € Aston Martini. Or meet someone who has one. But if I could go to the shop and say I want one for every day of the week, I clearly have too much money.


If that makes me a communist who wants to pull the plug on grandma and dance around her corpse, maybe I am.

& Rawhide....how is it a victory for the Public, when the majority doesn't want it? Just because a bias newsreporter only shows a couple of morons that can't explain themselves or given a full chance to, doesn't mean everyone is that ignorant, there is a reason. Of course he would publish only them, to promote their idea. Common sense... yeah.. that's a joke.. we'll see soon enough.

[VonMudra]

I think you miss understand Mudra though. He doesn't want healthcare because he doesn't need it. However I feel as though if Mudra found himself in a situation where an accident, or some chronic condition put him in a position where he continually needed it, he would pay for it.

Bingo.  There are 15,000,000 people in the USA who feel the same way.

Also, fun fact, people who are hospitalized without insurance actually have a LOWER bill then those who have it.  Hospitals like people who don't have it because its less nightmarish red tape and lawyers to fight through to get paid, meaning they get to spend less money fighting their way through.  Hospital bills for those without insurance run around 30-50% less then those with.