I sure as hell don't want a system where hospitals and doctors get paid 10 euros to fix my broken arm.
I'll pay a little extra to get it done right and not be an assembly line patient.
Doctors in a universal health care program get paid by the state not the individual. They could care less if you're happy or not. They get paid the same, doest matter if you live on the street or make a million a year.
Except as I said before if you're rich enough you don't go to the state system. That is also where most of the good doctors are, not in the state system.
In a for-profit system, people have gone bankrupt or even died, due to the capitalist greed of the doctors and the insurance companies. Are you in favor of bankruptcy and death?
Also, my priority is the working-class, NOT rich fuckheads. Why you're advocating for the rich certainly confuses me.
I was going to say 'can you read', but it's obvious you can't.
Everything I've said is about how universal health care screws the people who can't afford to pay outrageous amounts out of pocket.
What do you think happens if you have cancer and can't get tests or treatment for 6 to 8 months. You die! What do you think happens when you are lying on the ground after an accident (next to an ambulance) but they can't take you because they are not part of the state system. You die!
If you do elect to take that ambulance they will only take you to their hospital which is not part of the state system. The good you are probably going to get great care, the bad you are going to be bankrupt. Which is not the same as bankrupt in the USA. It means you still owe the bills you just get appointed a money manager. You get an allowance and they get control over your money, and where and when you work.
I've seen both these situations happen.
My comments are not in support of the rich, they are just to point out, that if you have a universal health care system, everyone is going to pay through taxes and you get little as well as poor quality care in return.
I'd much rather pay once and have a choice of where and who gives me care.
I take it you have never been under a universal health care system or even a state sponsored program. I am and I'm currently turning down treatment because the co-pay, (the money they want from me, in addition to the government funds) is too expensive.
Not necessarily too expensive for what I can afford, but too expensive for what I get in return. 500 euro a month, to sit on a stationary bike, do a few stretches, an ice pack, and electric stimulation. All done in 1 hour, 2 times a week. That's a government program for you.
If you think government programs are free think again. You just don't know what your talking about. Either that or you just want a free ride and don't understand, you don't get something for nothing.
Not gonna lie, I do appreciate hearing your perspective.
However, under our for-profit system, as I've mentioned, people have gone bankrupt or worse, between the assholishness of the insurance companies and the greed of doctors (that's right, in the US doctors are not benevolent healers, but are money-hungry businessmen). I've never heard of people going bankrupt under universal healthcare, so I'm a little confused by everything you've listed.
I'd assume you're not a sociopath, so I'm surprised that you're defending a system that leaves people bankrupt or worse.
I suppose I'd be willing to compromise and have a Public Option, but anything more capitalist than that, I will not tolerate.
I'm not defending a system that "leave people bankrupt or worse".
I'm just answering the question. Medicare for all isn't the answer, a universal healthcare system that still has deductables, copays, and not all hospitals or doctors are a part of is just another insurance plan.
The answers involve controlling what hospitals, doctors, medical equipment company's, pharmaceutical company can charge. Very few people can afford even the 20% they have to pay for a $100000 knee surgery.
Do your research, in the US the average person over 65 with Medicare spends 41% of their income on medical expenses. That's after they pay $170 a month for the enrollment fee which is already about 10% of their social security entitlement.
Bankruptcy for your senior citizens over medical bills has doubled in the last 10 years. Again that doesn't count the people who just decided they couldn't afford the treatment or that your Medicaid system had to step in and take care of.
Which means they either elected to die, or they basically gave up everything they owned to have the government take care and dictate their needs.
Who do you think gets sick or needs/uses the medical care the most. The poor or old!
A government system based on taxes has no cost controls they may negotiate a lower fee than walking in off the street, however, if the costs go up the government just goes back to the people for more taxes and or cost share options.
If the cost were even; then a 37 year old person with an income of $90000 would pay $9000 a year in enrollment fees and let's keep the cost of copays and deductables low because they don't use it as much, so let's say another 9 or 10k.
All of a sudden when you look at the real numbers it doesn't look so good.
The only answer is a Socialist program where government controls the cost and almost every doctor and hospital is controlled by the government.
Look around the world, the good doctors and medical care are not available in most of those countries. They leave for the money.
Medicare For All
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I sure as hell don't want a system where hospitals and doctors get paid 10 euros to fix my broken arm.
I'll pay a little extra to get it done right and not be an assembly line patient.
Doctors in a universal health care program get paid by the state not the individual. They could care less if you're happy or not. They get paid the same, doest matter if you live on the street or make a million a year.
Except as I said before if you're rich enough you don't go to the state system. That is also where most of the good doctors are, not in the state system.
You pay for what you get.
--
Anonymous Post Author
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
In a for-profit system, people have gone bankrupt or even died, due to the capitalist greed of the doctors and the insurance companies. Are you in favor of bankruptcy and death?
Also, my priority is the working-class, NOT rich fuckheads. Why you're advocating for the rich certainly confuses me.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I was going to say 'can you read', but it's obvious you can't.
Everything I've said is about how universal health care screws the people who can't afford to pay outrageous amounts out of pocket.
What do you think happens if you have cancer and can't get tests or treatment for 6 to 8 months. You die! What do you think happens when you are lying on the ground after an accident (next to an ambulance) but they can't take you because they are not part of the state system. You die!
If you do elect to take that ambulance they will only take you to their hospital which is not part of the state system. The good you are probably going to get great care, the bad you are going to be bankrupt. Which is not the same as bankrupt in the USA. It means you still owe the bills you just get appointed a money manager. You get an allowance and they get control over your money, and where and when you work.
I've seen both these situations happen.
My comments are not in support of the rich, they are just to point out, that if you have a universal health care system, everyone is going to pay through taxes and you get little as well as poor quality care in return.
I'd much rather pay once and have a choice of where and who gives me care.
I take it you have never been under a universal health care system or even a state sponsored program. I am and I'm currently turning down treatment because the co-pay, (the money they want from me, in addition to the government funds) is too expensive.
Not necessarily too expensive for what I can afford, but too expensive for what I get in return. 500 euro a month, to sit on a stationary bike, do a few stretches, an ice pack, and electric stimulation. All done in 1 hour, 2 times a week. That's a government program for you.
If you think government programs are free think again. You just don't know what your talking about. Either that or you just want a free ride and don't understand, you don't get something for nothing.
--
Anonymous Post Author
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Not gonna lie, I do appreciate hearing your perspective.
However, under our for-profit system, as I've mentioned, people have gone bankrupt or worse, between the assholishness of the insurance companies and the greed of doctors (that's right, in the US doctors are not benevolent healers, but are money-hungry businessmen). I've never heard of people going bankrupt under universal healthcare, so I'm a little confused by everything you've listed.
I'd assume you're not a sociopath, so I'm surprised that you're defending a system that leaves people bankrupt or worse.
I suppose I'd be willing to compromise and have a Public Option, but anything more capitalist than that, I will not tolerate.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm not defending a system that "leave people bankrupt or worse".
I'm just answering the question. Medicare for all isn't the answer, a universal healthcare system that still has deductables, copays, and not all hospitals or doctors are a part of is just another insurance plan.
The answers involve controlling what hospitals, doctors, medical equipment company's, pharmaceutical company can charge. Very few people can afford even the 20% they have to pay for a $100000 knee surgery.
Do your research, in the US the average person over 65 with Medicare spends 41% of their income on medical expenses. That's after they pay $170 a month for the enrollment fee which is already about 10% of their social security entitlement.
Bankruptcy for your senior citizens over medical bills has doubled in the last 10 years. Again that doesn't count the people who just decided they couldn't afford the treatment or that your Medicaid system had to step in and take care of.
Which means they either elected to die, or they basically gave up everything they owned to have the government take care and dictate their needs.
Who do you think gets sick or needs/uses the medical care the most. The poor or old!
A government system based on taxes has no cost controls they may negotiate a lower fee than walking in off the street, however, if the costs go up the government just goes back to the people for more taxes and or cost share options.
If the cost were even; then a 37 year old person with an income of $90000 would pay $9000 a year in enrollment fees and let's keep the cost of copays and deductables low because they don't use it as much, so let's say another 9 or 10k.
All of a sudden when you look at the real numbers it doesn't look so good.
The only answer is a Socialist program where government controls the cost and almost every doctor and hospital is controlled by the government.
Look around the world, the good doctors and medical care are not available in most of those countries. They leave for the money.