Reply With Quote
That's up to the death panel like it is in the UK.
What system do you support since all you seem to do is whine about solutions?
Seems like a bureaucratic nightmare to me. Would it cover the non-smoking waitress who chose to work in smoke-filled diner for 20 years and developed lung cancer?
That's up to the death panel like it is in the UK.
What system do you support since all you seem to do is whine about solutions?
Single payer. You're right in that there needs to be some cost benefit analysis, i.e. extending someones life for a month at a cost of 500K is obviously not cost efficient. That type of treatment would need to be paid by some cadillac insurance plan or out of pocket.
The UK has single payer healthcare, their "death panels!" are the ones doing cost benefit analysis.
The underlying problem is the way old people control this country. They're the group that neither contributes anything nor has the potential to contribute in the future, yet we invest the most money in old people. For every $1 we spend on people 0-18 years old, we spend $4 on people 65+ years old. It's insane how much money is spent keeping 80+ year old people alive.
I'm completely for paying the most towards the ones who cannot work anymore. tax freezes, free healthcare, etc. They did their time.
Yeah, lets invest in people who have nothing to contribute. Great way of thinking. Lets also do it at the expense of 0-18 year olds, people who do have potential to contribute.
So then get rid of SS? SInce that was the entire point of why it was created.
Yet another Boomer demanding that the handouts keep coming.... then your entire generation has the nerve to call young people "lazy" and "selfish" despite the fact that a) they learned it from you, and b) not being able to get a job because Boomers ruined the economy is not laziness....
The schism is not necessarily along CPAC lines. I also do not view what McConnell, McCain et al, vs. the 2011 Tea party coming out party as the neocons consolidating control. Quite the contrary as GOP house and senate leadership could not get any traction on anything. Boehner complained about it through the press for months during the monthly budget crisis.
IMO, a lot of these people *paid* throughout their lives with the promise they'll be taken care of when they get old. It's on the politicians for putting forth this unsustainable system (see: things like Medicare Part D, without any kind of funding).
They elected the politicians who promised them stuff like medicare part D and didn't worry about whether or not it was unsustainable because they knew young people would be the ones who suffer for their irresponsible selection of politicians. The politicians didn't elect themselves. They turned America's election process into, "Which candidate can promise me the most that I don't have to pay for!"
They also don't even care about their own health and reducing the medical attention they need because medicare completely absolves them of all responsibilities. My grandma (who's not even THAT old) has been told repeatedly by her doctor that she needs to get off the high blood pressure meds by doing simple exercise like going on a walk and watching what she eats. She however doesn't wanna do that because she, "Only likes to eat food that tastes good." Young people shouldn't have to pay for the fact old people lack personal responsibility and would rather have insane healthcare costs than watch what they eat.
Old people/baby boomers were basically given an inch and they made it their mission to take a mile without an iota of concern over who'd pay for it.
I understand, but the reality is that there wasn't a whole lot to choose from... red and blue like to talk different stuff when campaigning, but they end up basically doing the same . Let's not pretend that 'balancing the budget' hasn't been a bullet point in every campaign platform for the past 100 years...
I think the solution is somewhere on a middle-ground. I understand your point about irresponsibility, but there's also people that are responsible and have health setbacks regardless. Everybody gets sick at one point or another, through their own fault or not.
I've always been a proponent of a mixed system. Let government handle a perhaps slow, but working single-payor system, and those that want and can afford better/speedier care, should by all means go ahead an pay for private insurance/care. Some people might (lol boutons) that wealthier people would be getting better/speedier care (and I understand in some cases that might be crucial), but I think that's a much more workable and realistic system than "free best care for everybody all the time"...
BTW, here's a good read about the health problem... according to it, it's your day-to-day treatments that are overcharged like , not the "hero care" at the end of life...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/he...itures.html?hp
It's crazy how much more you pay here than overseas out-of-pocket... I personally do all my non-emergency dentistry overseas when I happen to go visit family... never topped $100... including x-rays, multiple cavity fixes, fillings, cleanup, etc...
You'd think all those shots of El Jimador for the anesthesia wouldn't be cheap tbh.
tbh, I had to look up what El Jimador was... not well versed in mexican spirits...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
