Socialized medicine

[Chilean]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

What a tremendously unkind, uncharitable, judgmental, and false thing to say.

Struck a nerve, didn't it? 

It is so true! People that are loyal to their parties want nothing from the other party, they are so blind they cant see pass their noises.

Theres a guy in my ward, wont say  political party, but yes, even though he teaches at church he hates muslims, immigrants, and refugees, and anyone that opposes to Trump, for whatever reason. Like seriously. Are you not telling me that he's more loyal to his party than the teachings of the gospel? Even when the church has been very clear about refugees, and muslims?

Edited July 31, 2018 by Chilean

[Sunday21]

Just now, Scott said:

This is probably it.  We live in a small and dying mining town out in the middle of nowhere and the town and two remaining wards are dying.  We dissolved one ward and one of the other two may dissolve in the near future.  

I know that your situation is unfair. Have talked to the Bishop? Perhaps the ward can fundraise? A GoFund Me project?

Very sorry about your situation! 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

The French Revolution is a pretty good example of people trying to force societal change to benefit the underprivileged. 

Just to be clear, I am not only talking about the underprivileged.   I am not underprivileged.  I make $75,000 a year, which is a really good wage for a family of four.

Even with a good wage, it is still hard to come up with $600,000 (or maybe more).  Would you agree?   Could you do it?  

Also, I'm not talking about only me.   I make a lot of money, especially compared to how I grew up.   And if we're struggling, what about those in their 20's who have a new baby?

Quote

Have talked to the Bishop? 

Yes, but we're trying to do it on our own and he said that the Church doesn't help with that anyway.

Quote

Perhaps the ward can fundraise? A GoFund Me project?

Maybe, but to be clear I bring this up because I don't want a hand out.   I'm not talking about becoming a communists, and I'm not talking about getting healthcare for free.   I just think that it should be obtainable, not free.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Scott

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

Our healthcare insurance premiums and costs were cheap and barely going up for over ten years, and the year before Obamacare was announced, our rates didn't increase at all - not by one cent.  After it was passed, but before it took effect, rates started skyrocketing and haven't stopped.  As best I can tell, people who had no insurance, or whose companies were lousy at negotiating contracts may have benefited from Obamacare, but for those who had good insurance, Obamacare said, "We're gonna screw you so we can cover everyone else, or at least make it so other people think their crappy state is no worse than anyone else's."

This is almost exactly my story, except healthcare insurance wasn't what I considered "cheap". But it got vastly more expensive after Obamacare was implemented.

After finishing one contract, I was offered the opportunity to continue my healthcare for my family -- for the bargain-basement price of $2300 per month. Seeing as how my next contract had fallen through a week before it was to have began, I was out of work and could not reasonably keep paying that kind of money as an unemployed householder. So after declining the COBRA, we decided that, like it or not, Obamacare was the law of the land, and we were simply going to have to get on board. Especially since Obama said that we would be penalized with a special tax if we didn't have healthcare insurance, we had no choice.

Oh, but guess what? The Obamacare people told us we were ineligible! Why? Well, because we VOLUNTARILY gave up our healthcare insurance by not opting to pay $2300 per month. So, you see, this made us ineligible.

tl;dr -- We got screwed by Obamacare.

I and my wife are not Barack Obama's biggest fans.

[Sunday21]

38 minutes ago, Vort said:

How is that not agency? I'm sorry for your trials; I can only imagine how awful it must be, and I hope never to have to do more than imagine. But choices such as you describe are exactly what it means to be an agent. Whatever point you're trying to make is lost on me when you rhetorically ask an obviously true question with an expected negative answer.

"Lower cost"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? European income tax rates are typically over 50% -- and note that the US is largely subsidizing their national defense costs. Make them pay their own defense costs, and the European economy goes up in smoke. I believe their healthcare is unsustainable at any decent level of care. 

I'm not going to argue that the US medical system is not screwed up, because it is -- badly. I will strongly argue that solving US health care woes by instituting government-run mandatory health care is like solving a broken leg by amputation. We absolutely do not want to go that route.

A high tax rate in Canada for high income, no kids is 31% 

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, Chilean said:

Struck a nerve, didn't it? 

It is so true! People that are loyal to their parties want nothing from the other party, they are so blind they cant see pass their noises.

Theres a guy in my ward, wont say  political party, but yes, even though he teaches at church he hates muslims, immigrants, and anyone that opposes to Trump, for whatever reason. Like seriously. Are you not telling me that he's more loyal to his party than the teachings of the gospel? Even when the church has been very clear about refugees, and muslims?

You didn't strike a nerve.  @Vort is just good at calling b.s.

That dudein your ward sounds like a jerk.  What's the relevance?

[Chilean]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

You didn't strike a nerve.  @Vort is just good at calling b.s.

That dudein your ward sounds like a jerk.  What's the relevance?

Just backing up my argument.   LOL It's all good.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Chilean

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Chilean said:

Struck a nerve, didn't it?

Yes, it did. It struck the nerve of common decency.

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

Just to be clear, I am not only talking about the underprivileged.   I am not underprivileged.  I make $75,000 a year, which is a really good wage.

Even with a good wage, it is still hard to come up with $600,000 (or maybe more).  Would you agree?   Could you do it?  

Arguments that say "I can't pay my medical bills so we should have socialized healthcare" basically equate to "My medical expenses are too high so everybody else should be forced to pay for them."

[Guest Scott]

Quote

After finishing one contract, I was offered the opportunity to continue my healthcare for my family -- for the bargain-basement price of $2300 per month.

We pay $2400 a month and still have to come up with $600,000.  I hope that that never happens to you or anyone else.

And I am only using my own situation as an example.   There are millions of other people in this country that are a lot worse off then we are.

 

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Chilean said:

Just backing up my argument.   LOL It's all good.

But it doesn't back up your argument.  It's irrelevant.

I became a Libertarian because the Libertarian philosophy matches my own beliefs on Government noninterference and individual liberty.  I don't alwats vote Libertarian and I don't always support the Libertarian platform. 

Surprise!  Not everybody outsources their thinking to a political party.

And I think socialized medicine is a disaster.

 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Arguments that say "I can't pay my medical bills so we should have socialized healthcare" basically equate to "My medical expenses are too high so everybody else should be forced to pay for them."

Ideally, there should be a system where everyone who works hard can obtain healthcare after paying all of their lives into the system (fine-make it voluntary).   It should not expected to be free.  

Where does medical knowledge and the knowledge to save lives come from?  If it comes from God, does God want such knowledge to only be used by the ultra-rich?   From what I gather most people positing in the forum would say yes.  

Edited July 31, 2018 by Scott

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

Is that what God wants?  This is a serious question. 

Did God allow mankind to obtain medical knowledge only so it could benefit only the very rich?   This is another serious question.

There is a huge difference between what God "Wants" and what he "Allows."  God "Wants" us to be charitable, kind, and to help each other out.  He "Allows" us to be selfish, mean, and hurt each other.

Funny how when we talk about socialized medicine we are always focused on the sick... We never talk about he Doctor we would all but enslave to make sure we get the care or the typical hard worker who hard earned income gets taken from to pay for the care and all the horrible inefficiency in the system...  We demand that they give charity and be selfless and sacrifice even if they do not want to... How is that what God "Wants"? 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

How is that what God "Wants"? 

No.

Quote

God "Wants" us to be charitable, kind, and to help each other out.  He "Allows" us to be selfish, mean, and hurt each other.

Agreed.  

As mentioned many times, I myself don't want charity or a handout, but only something to pay into where you can be covered if things come up.

I and my employers have been paying for insurance for 27 years; ever since I joined the military on my 17th birthday.

Before 2017, we never had any known expensive medical costs.   It was something that came as a surprise.   So was the surprise of what the out of pocket expenses would be.

We all think (at least we did) that since we have been paying for insurance for decades that if something came up we would be covered.   The truth is the insurance industry has a noose around all of our necks and they make the decision of what to pay and when.  

I don't want you to pay for my medical bills and I'm not asking for a handout.   I want the system that we have been paying into for decades to help pay. Isn't that the whole point of having insurance?    I always thought so, but obviously insurance companies don't agree.   

I don't have a good solution, but whatever we are doing as a country isn't working.   Unless you never happen to have major medical issues come up (and I hope that none of you ever have to go through this).  

Edited July 31, 2018 by Scott

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

Where does medical knowledge and the knowledge to save lives come from?  If it comes from God, does God want such knowledge to only be used by the ultra-rich?   From what I gather most people positing in the forum would say yes. 

I'm curious to know what you have gathered that would lead you to this conclusion. Maybe you can quote what people have said that makes you think "most people" posting here think that God wants life-saving knowledge "to only be used by the ultra-rich".

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

Ideally, there should be a system where everyone who works hard can obtain healthcare after paying all of their lives into the system (fine-make it voluntary).   It should not expected to be free.  

Where does medical knowledge and the knowledge to save lives come from?  If it comes from God, does God want such knowledge to only be used by the ultra-rich?   From what I gather most people positing in the forum would say yet.  

You're absolutely right that people should be able to afford healthcare, and that it needn't be free.  I agree with you completely.

But nobody here is saying only the rich should have it.

So why is it so expensive?

Back in the '50s doctors made housecalls and routine visits were cheap even by the standards of the time.  Health insurance was only for catastrophic problems like heart attacks.  

One day, some bean counter decided that it would be worth it for insurance companies to cover check-ups, because by encouraging people to seek preventative care, it would save the company money on catastrophic problems later.  As a result, the cost to the patient disappeared to bevreplaced by the negotiated price paid by the insurance companies.  The result: People became accustomed to the idea that ALL medical costs went through insurance.  That's why even elective items like contraceptives are now covered too.

At the same time, rising malpractice expenses caused doctors to payfor ever-increasing malpractice insurance costs, which get transferred to the customer, aka medical insurance companies.

Also, the Federal Government got involved, causing vast amounts of paperwork.  You know how doctor's offices have a large staff of people just sittingnthere doing paperwork?  Thank Medicaid/Medicare for that.  Those employees cost money.  Lots of money.

Those are the problems that need to be addressed.

[Guest Scott]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm curious to know what you have gathered that would lead you to this conclusion. Maybe you can quote what people have said that makes you think "most people" posting here think that God wants life-saving knowledge "to only be used by the ultra-rich".

Some of the quotes that led me to this conclusion:

Healthcare is and always has been a privilege afforded by those that can pay for it. 

Arguments that say "I can't pay my medical bills so we should have socialized healthcare" basically equate to "My medical expenses are too high so everybody else should be forced to pay for them."

Quote

Those are the problems that need to be addressed.

Agreed, but do you think the free market is going to address this all out of the goodness of their hearts?   I don't.   Otherwise they would.

Our government is corrupt, so I don't think that would solve the problems either.   

To me, insurance companies look at customers as dollar signs, not people.   When it comes to saving lives, they care more about money than they do people.   They don't look at the person in a hospital bed as being a person at all, but only someone to dump if they aren't making enough money on them, no matter how much or for how long they have paid into the system.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Scott

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

Some of the quotes that led me to this conclusion:

Healthcare is and always has been a privilege afforded by those that can pay for it. 

Arguments that say "I can't pay my medical bills so we should have socialized healthcare" basically equate to "My medical expenses are too high so everybody else should be forced to pay for them."

How exactly does my quote equate to only rich people should get it?  That's a stretch.

[Lost Boy]

Here is the real answer.  Misinformation and no willingness to really study it.  They have heard from multiple sources how bad it is and have made up their minds without truly studying the facts.

1) Single payer is not socialized medicine.  It would be a federally run insurance corporation of sorts.  That part would essentially be socialized.  That is where the socialized part ends.  Hospitals, clinics, doctor offices, labs etc would still be private or non-profit.   Hospitals would still compete for your business as would doctors.

2) There would be a new tax on your pay stub, but most likely the medicare would be eliminated.  And your health insurance premium that you and your employer pay would be eliminated.  Also, co-pays would either be eliminated or reduced.  The net effect on one salary would be most likely a net increase in take home pay.

3) Countries with a socialized payment system typically have much lower drug costs.

4) Your assets won't be wiped out due to major illness.

5) Most people don't use market driven insurance anyway.  Most people get the health insurance their company offers.  And generally you get one or two options.  It is rare to get three or more options.  This is not a capitalistic system.  People claim that if you don't like what the company offers, you can go buy insurance out of your pocket on your own.   Well, in a single payer system, you could do that as well.  You could purchase premium coverage.

6) You would have more access to doctors and hospitals.  Essentially all would be in the system.

7) Cost of child birth would be next to zero.  Could that potentially reduce the number of abortions?

 

Other misinformation.  

1) Waiting for an operation could take over a year.  This really depends on the country, the system, how things are set up, etc.   Read this.  http://www.drsforamerica.org/blog/the-waiting-times-myth

2) Innovation would decrease.  This also is not factual.  It is a guess at best.  Hospitals would still be allowed to develop new treatments and procedures.  And it really depends on how the single payer is set up to determine how much money is allotted to developing new procedures, etc.

 

Some people are opposed to this because they don't like providing a free lunch to slackers.  Guess what, we already do.  A good healthcare system is going to create a healthier, more productive population.  More productive equates to less crime.  Less crime means less cost for law enforcement and incarceration.  It would most likely result in a reduction in gun sales as well.

 

And for the final comment.

I am not a democrat.  I very much dislike the democratic party.  I was born a republican but am no longer a republican due to the republican stance on things such as health care reform and immigration.

That said, I truly believe that a single payer system is going to happen.  If it happens under democratic rule, then the democrats will get to set it up how they want.  If it happens under republican rule, republicans will get to set it up how they want.

I truly believe that the republicans have a huge chance here to make history and crush democrats for a very long time if they pulled their heads out and passed this legislation.  

If the democrats set it up, they will ensure that abortion is covered, that illegals are covered, etc.

 

Now would you like to discuss immigration policies???

[Guest Scott]

Quote

How exactly does my quote equate to only rich people should get it?  

If your quote doesn't mean that, then what does it mean for those who need medical care, even those who make good wages, but who still can't come up with huge sums of money that only the very rich can afford?

I equate that to only rich people should get it.   If that isn't your intent, then what do you mean?

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

If your quote doesn't mean that, then what does it mean for those who need medical care, even those who make good wages, but who still can't come up with huge sums of money that only the very rich can afford?

I equate that to only rich people should get it.   If that isn't your intent, then what do you mean?

That the out of control costs of medicine are based on issues that need to be addressed and corrected.  My prior post lists 3 of them.  There are more.  Remember back when the big Congressional issue was tort reform?  Part of that was about malpractice insurance that was contributing to rising medical bills.

Suddenly all those factors are forgotten because of the socialized healthcare discussion.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

If your quote doesn't mean that, then what does it mean for those who need medical care, even those who make good wages, but who still can't come up with huge sums of money that only the very rich can afford?

I equate that to only rich people should get it.   If that isn't your intent, then what do you mean?

You quoted me too... and I also did not mean that only the rich should get it... but the simple fact is people have always had to pay for a doctor to come visit.  If you couldn't then you needed charity from some where.  Even if the doctors fee was small.

The problem is how expensive medical care has gotten, it has risen at a rate highly out of sync with wages or other expenses.  There are many reasons for this but the biggest is that the medical industry is isolated from the forces of Free Market (by several things).

If you want the government to do something... don't ask it to become a middle man  in your health care because the government can do nothing cheaply... instead have it break down the isolation and monopolistic type forces that allow the industry to be immune to the forces that affect every other businesses.

[Rob Osborn]

There is nothing evil with socialized medicine. Put another way- there is nothing evil with spreading the load out in communities to help out the poor and needful. Laws are passed that put healthcare finances into motion. We vote in those lawmakers. At any time we can vote in other people. Usually we pass laws to make society safer and communities work better. If it were truly evil we would see the fruits of Satan manifest. So, I ask- how is it satanic for the taxpayer funds to go help pay for the neighbor who has cancer and his medical bills are in the hundreds of thousands? What local parish is going to pay for that? Thus the reason why we use tax dollars to help pay for amounts local communities generally cant on their own. Agency isnt even involved in this at all which is why I find the debate comical. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Scott said:

Here are some conflicting comments from another thread (Bad Intentions thread), but it deserves it's own topic:

This is one instance where I would agree with Rob.

Why are so many LDS people so against any form of socialized medicine?  

For many of those that need healthcare, the only choices are either to let your loved one die or to go bankrupt and to lose everything.   I don't see how this is true agency.

I don’t think a special or protected constitutional right and legislative action to provide a service is the same thing. Healthcare is not a constitutional right, but Congress has passed laws to provide and pay for it in terms of providing for the general Welfare, which is where politics and political ideology comes in (and in our system of government, compromise).

Our system of government under a democratic republic is inspired of God, but the politics and ideologies operating within it may not be. I believe the Book of Mormon teaches the inspired principle of laws and governments being established by the voice of the people inasmuch as “it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right,” and warns against the majority becoming evil or wicked.

The Gospel is taught among all kinds of governments and the Church cooperates with the various systems in place all over the world. No government will be perfect until the Millennium.

I don’t think a system should be condemned or glorified just because of its structure or label. Both capitalism and socialism can be abused, and their respective healthcare systems can reflect that abuse. The prophets condemn materialism and greed as well as captivity and coercion. But I believe in general the practitioners of the healing arts within any system are, by and large, acting out of a God-given interest in alleviating the suffering of others.

[unixknight]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There is nothing evil with socialized medicine. Put another way- there is nothing evil with spreading the load out in communities to help out the poor and needful. Laws are passed that put healthcare finances into motion. We vote in those lawmakers. At any time we can vote in other people. Usually we pass laws to make society safer and communities work better. If it were truly evil we would see the fruits of Satan manifest. So, I ask- how is it satanic for the taxpayer funds to go help pay for the neighbor who has cancer and his medical bills are in the hundreds of thousands? What local parish is going to pay for that? Thus the reason why we use tax dollars to help pay for amounts local communities generally cant on their own. Agency isnt even involved in this at all which is why I find the debate comical. 

We are seeing the fruits of Satan manifest.  With socialized medicine:

Your tax dollars help fund abortion, contraceptives, sex reassignment, euthanasia

Healthcare is rationed, so euthanasia becomes common

Kids like Charlie Gard die, even though doctors in other countries are willing to help, because government will not have its power undermined.

I included only real life examples.  There are other dangers as well but I trust my point is made.