View Single Post
Old 09-24-2008, 11:16 AM   #66
SD Nihil
@SD Nihil
Junior Member
SD Nihil's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: United States of America
Posts: 434
Current Game: K1/2, EaW/FoC, & TFU
Originally Posted by Astor_Kaine
It's not fair by any stretch of the imagination.
In your opinion.

Originally Posted by Astor=Kaine
An amount paid by someone can't be an opinion.
I wasn't disputing that.

If someone gives they give.

No, I reserve the right as patient to receive a second opinion, and if I'm unhappy with the doctor I'm assigned, I can ask to be treated by another.
Proof, and my point is you have less control over your taxes, choice of level of care because again that's regulated by the government. The government whether the doc made one ultimately the government can say in their opinion how soon you get that surgery.

UHC differs from government to government depending on restrictions and limits set by the government.

We have Primary Care Trusts - they are responsible for the big decisions.
What if the patients whets another treatment? The government can say no if they want to.

Then we have Hospital Trusts. These trusts are responsible for the Hospitals, and consequently, how care is administered.
And because it's not privatized the tax payer has to pay for it. Whereas CHC you can choose to pay for that hospital or not by seeking this hospital or not. They get paid when you pay them if you wish to pay them for their services.

In the US those that come in without money don't even have to and we still try to save their lives though our taxes go up as a result. Does it mean their poverty is their fault no. But if they never tried then yes. If they end up on the streets we're a humane nation with shelters who take in those who are trying to make their way and who do not give up.

The only thing the government is responsible for is the political side.
Meaning to treat this minority quicker than this non minority group? Explain what you mean.

Spell checker made a mistake of what I mistyped. I meant instead of steel I meant sell. But then again sell is not correct. The government can easily take your idea for their own if they wanted.

She's a moderator, and she's right.
That has nothing to do with the topic anyway, but that's true. They can moderate and take action if I do not follow rules. But they cannot or should not tell me or make me not post or speak how I wish to speak about poverty as long as I'm not breaking forum rules.

If you're not willing to take the time to research, then why are we even having this discussion?
I've seen less than a handful of instances where you guys have given credible sources either. And this about sources isn't on topic in my opinion. That's not moderating. That's me giving my opinion.
The moderators will do the moderating. Thank you.

No, it isn't, but I'm not going to bother mentioning it any more, as it's clear that you seem to think that UHCs are evil.
In your opinion. And I never said evil. I simply disagree with it.

Why not? I'm reminded of a famous quote:
I believe JFK was referring to not UHC he was referring to people working. But many things that our leaders of the past have said have been subject to other's opinions, stances, and interpretations. I could say he was maybe referring to the space program and what they can do for this country. See interpretation.

The NHS is duty bound to provide the highest standards and quality of care to all who require, at the point of delivery. The Government has little say in this.
A standard set and changed based on what the government thinks. A standard in which they can deem what is considered good level of care. Whereas CHC you determine what level of care you wish to receive based on your income and what doc you go to, what hospital you go to, what state you get it from, what insurance you use, and how hard you work.

Originally Posted by SD Nihil
O Reilly is a smart guy. Forward to about 1 min and 50 sec into it.
Your smiley you put under this isn't an argument. It's just a smiley.

Originally Posted by Joe Onasi
It would certainly streamline claims processing if we had only one form to process. Right now, the office I work at takes several hundred different plans. They pretty much are all different, and all the forms are different, and getting one little jot or title wrong on the claim form means it gets bounced back to us as rejected. Less paperwork means less labor costs.
I don't want to pay all that. And again government in general even in America is slow when to do this and that. The Commission for the Blind in states is too.

UHC is subject to government regulation.

It would certainly streamline claims processing if we had only one form to process. Right now, the office I work at takes several hundred different plans. They pretty much are all different, and all the forms are different, and getting one little jot or title wrong on the claim form means it gets bounced back to us as rejected. Less paperwork means less labor costs
Documentation is good from a legal standpoint in that it protects the patient from errors that can effect their plan of care. Paperwork is needed to be correct. You want not the wrong person to get billed or the wrong insurance to be written. Paperwork makes those providing care liable for mistakes. It protects your rights. Let's you know the fine print of things.

If you didn't have paperwork how can you go to court and make a case for mal treatment. Especially if the government is backing the UHC system. They are paying the government your money. Why would they go against their own system that is paying them. Why would they want annoy anyone.

They protect their own interests. And the UHC has the government's interests at heart.

When I was in the military system, I had a choice of which orthopedic surgeons I wanted to go to, and I had a choice of which hospital systems within the military that I wanted to go to. I still did my research on the surgeons that were on the military plan. The VA is the same--a vet can go to whatever VA hospital he wants, and can see whoever so/he wants to within the system. My current insurance limits who I can go to based on who accepts my plan, so I'm not sure what you mean by lack of choice. I might actually have more choice if every single doctor was on the same universal plan.
The VA of the US? If so then that really isn't a UHC system. Because the government is capitalistic. And you can go elsewhere for care besides the VA which is not privatized care.

I might actually have more choice if every single doctor was on the same universal plan.
Those with a government that have UHC don't have the choice of not to pay for the UHC. Their tax dollars go to it. They don't have the choice to go to another hospital that is privately run care. If the docs are not on the same page that's their decision and feelings they are entitled to. You cannot make someone think or believe the way you want. If you do that's intolerance, that's oppression. And when a country or people cannot allow or punish those for their opinions then that is fascism. Communism does this.

Originally Posted by SD Nihil View Post
Also UHC where you said insurance isn't separate from the expenses. That doesn't make it any less of a bill. That doesn't and
Large non-contributory block quote removed for streamlined reading.

Did I say always it was their fault. No. I said their is food for them, shelters for them, programs for them, and we do provide aid in emergency cases.

It shows that your father has compassion. I've seen plenty of discrimination by insurance companies against those with pre-existing conditions, i.e. they won't even give the person coverage, or will only do so at a rate significantly higher than someone without that condition. The CHC is about making money, pure and simple. I doubt your dad ever had to deal with billing and insurance issues anyway--the hospital insurance department likely took care of that for him, so he never had to deal with the money side of this.
It doesn't mean that insurance companies in UHC don't think of profit. It means also that wages are also controlled and set by the government in UHC.

Our own statistics in the US show our CHC system is not as good as many UHCs in infant mortality and maternal mortality. The World Health Organization provides a lot of health stats that countries can't hide, and also ranks the US a lot lower in infant/maternal mortality than in a significant number of other countries.
It depends on who did the study, how they arranged the info, how they sun it, what info they left out, and their own bias.

Please explain to me how infant and maternal mortality rates can be interpreted in multiple ways.
Depends on where the study was taken, who's hospital they polled, what state, country, did they compare a state to a government, what countries they compared, and who did the study.

I see. You aren't interested in educating yourself on something that differs from your opinion. That's a pity.
Your not changing your view either. We both have our minds made up. You don't want to learn either in my opinion.

Then why are you posting here? If you want to present your opinion, fine, but don't give people a hard time when they ask you for proof to back up why you think that way. That's grossly unfair.
I'm not. I just believe whatever I post will be up to interpretation. Like the O Reily source. He researched, but his research was done by one who had an opinion. And one who could've manipulated facts, or not. Or facts to some may seem to be lies to others.

It's all what you believe is right, your interpretation, and your bias.

hat doesn't mean we can't learn something new or change our minds when we've discovered some information that changes our information.
You don't change either. Your mind is made up. Both of us are on what we think system is better.

You haven't said anything more than what I know already.

Originally Posted by SD Nihil View Post
Also UHC
Large non-contributory block quote removed.

No. I'm paying for my own care and their employees wages as a customer. If they use that money where and how they wish for their care then that's their choice. I'm not paying for them. They are paying with their own money.

No, it's ultimately up to us because we vote these people in and out of office. Right now I have zero say in my health insurance management. With UHC I would have some kind of say, no matter how small and how indirect.
The current system you must pay for, if the time comes around to vote to keep it or not. If there isn't a time to vote the system in or out you don't get to vote on it. And you pay a lot for others who some might not have worked hard.

Well, you better not pay insurance then, either, and you better not get sick yourself, because in the first case you're paying for someone else, and in the second case someone else will be paying for you, which you would find completely unfair.
I believe we won't have a UHC. If we do I'll just move to another country that doesn't.

Last edited by Jae Onasi; 09-24-2008 at 02:53 PM. Reason: removed large block quotes and expletive
SD Nihil is offline   you may: quote & reply,