How do people live without medical insurance?

[flex wood]

So you think making a couple of companies lose millions in revenue is better? Because that's what I'm hearing.

Had to fix that.

The reason we will never have universal health care is because we live in a free market capitalist country where we will bail out any large company the government deems worthy of being labeled "too big to fail." If we brought about free health care we would be shutting down quite a few companies that employ a very large number of people. Shutting them down would allegedly hurt the economy and cause unemployment to shoot up thus making the trade off for health care less worth it.

[Ack]

No one will be made to get rid of it. They just won't need health insurance. Why would you need health insurance in a country with free healthcare? They can keep their life, auto, home and all the various other insurances Insurance limits services more than free healthcare.

Timeliness and better service. Let's be frank, while nations that provide standardized health care offer it to the masses, a caveat is that said healthcare also suffers from large waiting lists and the potential for a lack of supplies due to overwhelming demand.

Allowing people to pay additional money to access private healthcare from private providers means some people may be able to skip the waiting list(both giving them access to potentially necessary medical needs in a timely fashion and shortening the list for others if private providers differ from federal providers by never having these individuals on said list), as well as providing increased funds for private providers to purchase better equipment.

As an example: let's say there are 10,000 infants born who need an incubator for a preterm birth, but there are only 5,000 incubators available in the continental US. That leaves 5,000 on a waiting list. But if the parents of 2,000 of those have private healthcare facilities they can access through a more expensive private option, then that knocks the waiting list down to 3,000.

I use this example because this has happened in countries like Canada, where healthcare facilities opted to send families to private healthcare facilities in the United States because the state-run system was full.

So you think making a couple of companies lose millions in revenue is better? Because that's what I'm hearing.

Had to fix that.

The reason we will never have universal health care is because we live in a free market capitalist country where we will bail out any large company the government deems worthy of being labeled "too big to fail." If we brought about free health care we would be shutting down quite a few companies that employ a very large number of people. Shutting them down would allegedly hurt the economy and cause unemployment to shoot up thus making the trade off for health care less worth it.

Ah, but we don't live in a fully free-market capitalist country. If we did, we wouldn't bail companies out.

[MrPopo]

America needs to shit or get off the pot, by this I mean we either need to have a universal healthcare and everyone gets healthcare or we need doctors to be able to refuse treatment to those without insurance and let survival of the fittest take place. Because right now those without insurance still get treatment but those with insurance pay for it with their premiums.

Seriously? Take some time and reflect on that. Do you really want to live in the land of "survival of the fittest"? Or only when it comes to other people suffering and not yourself? You can pay your bills...awesome. Can you protect yourself from a gang of "the fittest" who decide all the shit you buy should be theirs? Barbaric mentality should extend beyond your own safe little bubble if you want to use it as an excuse for some sort of passive aggressive genocide.

Not treating people who can't afford to be treated is genocide? Seems a bit hyperbolic to me. I think it's reasonable to say that we should either go to "everyone gets healthcare for free" or to go to "no money = no service". The current system is the worst of both worlds.

[pepharytheworm]

Do you really believe more will suffer with free healthcare then with our current healthcare? Because it sounds like you are saying "but people with more money might have to suffer now". Money shouldn't decide who deserves priorty. But the truth is we already see Canada's mistakes and can prevent them.

[flex wood]

Ah, but we don't live in a fully free-market capitalist country. If we did, we wouldn't bail companies out.

Although true that wasn't really my point. The government is going to do what it can to manipulate the economy as it sees fit to keep it healthy. This is both good and bad since it can help keep things afloat but is also very stupid because they get to pick and choose who they help. Either way them keeping health care in private hands is keeping these insurance companies alive.

Also pm incoming on a completely unrelated matter.

[MrPopo]

Money shouldn't decide who deserves priorty.

Money exists, therefore it will determine priority. It might be explicit, such as a sign that says "paying customers move to the front of the line", or it might just be bribes.

[Ack]

Do you really believe more will suffer with free healthcare then with our current healthcare? Because it sounds like you are saying "but people with more money might have to suffer now". Money shouldn't decide who deserves priorty. But the truth is we already see Canada's mistakes and can prevent them.

It's a bit like medication to bi-polar medication: you have ups and downs, or everybody gets the same mediocrity. We've experimented with government sponsored healthcare: Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's Affairs. None have proven to be entirely effective and suffer from extensive wait lists and the inability to procure necessary equipment, so even in small scale we're already seeing problems. As glorious as the concept of free healthcare is, it is also rife with opportunity for human error and mismanagement.

And even if we manage to struggle through and end up with an excellent system similar to the social systems in Scandinavia, they're starting to suffer under the increase of immigration in response, which is leading to other ongoing social issues in their society, particularly prejudice. As a nation that has thrived on immigration(whether or not we like to admit it, considering our past behavior to immigrant waves), do we want a system that may inevitably lead to the resurgence of such attitudes?

[pepharytheworm]

Money shouldn't decide who deserves priorty.

Money exists, therefore it will determine priority. It might be explicit, such as a sign that says "paying customers move to the front of the line", or it might just be bribes.

I said "shouldn't". Do you think it should? Otherwise what is your point?

[MrPopo]

Money shouldn't decide who deserves priorty.

Money exists, therefore it will determine priority. It might be explicit, such as a sign that says "paying customers move to the front of the line", or it might just be bribes.

I said "shouldn't". Do you think it should? Otherwise what is your point?

I think whether it should or not is immaterial, so bringing it up just leaves you in la la fantasy land along with the true communists and those who believe in true democracy and every other theoretical system based around ignoring the fact that humans are selfish.

[pepharytheworm]

Do you really believe more will suffer with free healthcare then with our current healthcare? Because it sounds like you are saying "but people with more money might have to suffer now". Money shouldn't decide who deserves priorty. But the truth is we already see Canada's mistakes and can prevent them.

It's a bit like medication to bi-polar medication: you have ups and downs, or everybody gets the same mediocrity. We've experimented with government sponsored healthcare: Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's Affairs. None have proven to be entirely effective and suffer from extensive wait lists and the inability to procure necessary equipment, so even in small scale we're already seeing problems. As glorious as the concept of free healthcare is, it is also rife with opportunity for human error and mismanagement.

And even if we manage to struggle through and end up with an excellent system similar to the social systems in Scandinavia, they're starting to suffer under the increase of immigration in response, which is leading to other ongoing social issues in their society, particularly prejudice. As a nation that has thrived on immigration(whether or not we like to admit it, considering our past behavior to immigrant waves), do we want a system that may inevitably lead to the resurgence of such attitudes?

"Don't want more immigrants because people might become more prejudice" already sounds prejudice. If there is an influx of immigrants then obviously they are doing something right and maybe the problem isn't that they offer good healthcare but that other countries don't. Don't you want to live in a desirable country? Or do you want to live in an undesirable country so we have less immigrants?

But the fact of the matter is what we have is terrible.