Polls show McCain winning the general election...

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The people who are uninsured are ones who have chosen to be uninsured. They make enough money to afford it but choose not to.

I didn't see a smiley on the end of it but have a hard time believing that comment was serious.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Well you know, it could be argued that the lack of resources is a direct result of the system, so I don't buy that. At least to hear my Uncle talk, he will set you straight on that one. Pay rate is also a direct result of the system and apparently that system doesn't attract any news recruits because of it.

-S

There was a time when we were losing many to the US because of the dollar, that has changed some what in the current climate. Just look at the demographics with regards to boomers etc, folks just are not having the amount of children that they once had, couple this with the amount baby boomers retiring each year and you have your labor shortage. Planning with regards to this has been very poor and we are seeing the results.

Of course the issues are not all related to this, it is more complex than that, but the above is a definite driver.

Maybe I could put your Uncle in touch with my Mother ( retired RN ) and Brother in Law, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon, I am sure it would be an interesting disussion


RDP

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I didn't see a smiley on the end of it but have a hard time believing that comment was serious.

It is. Even the Mexicans have figured out the system to fre health care, and the people who are not on welfare can afford it anyway. If you do a demographic, the majority lions share without health care is the 20 somethings that assume they are bullet proof. Of course, there is the odd family that gets caught up and has a situation where they are unprepared, but this is due to lack of planning and should not affect the rest of us.

This is what annoys me about the latest health care debate - The people who are most effected made it by choice or lack of proper planning. THese are not my problems. Forcing health care on these people is just pathetic since its their responsibility.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

...Maybe I could put your Uncle in touch with my Mother ( retired RN ) and Brother in Law, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon, I am sure it would be an interesting disussion


RDP

Oh my gosh! You have no idea how interesting it would get!

-S

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

It is. Even the Mexicans have figured out the system to fre health care, and the people who are not on welfare can afford it anyway. If you do a demographic, the majority lions share without health care is the 20 somethings that assume they are bullet proof. Of course, there is the odd family that gets caught up and has a situation where they are unprepared, but this is due to lack of planning and should not affect the rest of us.

This is what annoys me about the latest health care debate - The people who are most effected made it by choice or lack of proper planning. THese are not my problems. Forcing health care on these people is just pathetic since its their responsibility.

-S

The idea of universal insurance sounds awkward, as if your freedom to choose is being removed.
Think of it this way - as a step to lower general prices. If insurance is optional, then those who consider themselves to be low-risk won't buy it. Those who are at high risk will, naturally, alleviate that risk through buying insurance. Now that healthy people aren't buying insurance, the relative number of claims will rise, leading to higher premiums, pricing some people out of the market. Iterate as desired.
If everyone has to have insurance, then the risk-spread is better for the companies, and average prices are lower.

Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and medical bills are overwhelmingly the most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the United States.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

The idea of universal insurance sounds awkward, as if your freedom to choose is being removed.
Think of it this way - as a step to lower general prices. If insurance is optional, then those who consider themselves to be low-risk won't buy it. Those who are at high risk will, naturally, alleviate that risk through buying insurance. Now that healthy people aren't buying insurance, the relative number of claims will rise, leading to higher premiums, pricing some people out of the market. Iterate as desired.
If everyone has to have insurance, then the risk-spread is better for the companies, and average prices are lower.

You are on the right track, but you forgot to include the fact that health care insurance goes up as risk goes up. A 20 something pays next to nothing for health care insurance already, whereas a high risk person pays more so there is already a balance.

Also, a universal system does not build the infrastructure that a market system builds, resulting in an overall decline in the actual quality of health care since someon is dictating what you can and can't spend.


This is the reason for the increase in health care costs - the infrastructure is getting more expnsive. This is a good trade off for getting the 'best' health care the world can provide. Universal health care is a downward spiral where a government decides on who lives and dies based on cost.

I will reiterate - peoples personal bankruptcy is not my problem due to their lack of planning.

You know where that lack of planning really stems from? Consumerism and people who can't control their out of control spending. That nice shiney new car is a much better choice to them than the welfare of their family. And how again am I supposed to be responsible for this pathetic choice?

And you know who is really driving universal healthcare? The credit industry. They are looking for a more stable system to lend money and rape people of theirs. THey want more stability so that they can get every last cent out of people.

Universal healthcare has its roots in an evil greed based mindset, and not on the best healthcare for an individual. This is a catch 22 statement for socialism who is supposed to be out for the best for all. THe best system for all is the system we have right now which give myself and others the best health care the world can afford. I live for a world of choice, and peoples poor choice is not of my concern, though I am willing to help someone out who is ready to make an effort back to a way of proper choice.

-S

[bradclark1]

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/0...htm#Conclusion

[SUBMAN1]

Well that about sums it up. But as I said, even the Mexicans have figured out how to get 'free health care' and that simply makes use of the emergency rooms so non of this uninsured matters. We are still footing the bill with our current insurance.

SO that chart is a big whoop! :p

-S

PS. Matter of fact - the majority of people that are uninsured (The friggen illegals) won't even be getting the free insurance (At least I hope not).

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Hardly because I doubt any conservatives pay much attention to the NYT.

-S

Well, those people would already have been voting for McCain over Obama/Clinton, so they wouldn't figure in a recent change. He's only pulled ahead of either since the article was published, I think he picked up a lot of swing voters there.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...racking_poll??

McCain has consistently held a modest lead over Clinton but he moved ahead of Obama only after publication of the controversial New York Times article last week

[geetrue]

Polls stand for what people think ...

Votes count for what people thought ...

[Stealth Hunter]

These polls don't mean a damn thing. We've seen this same stuff before, and it normally turns around the other way.

Either way, I doubt McCain would survive long enough to run the White House. The man is old, and he's looking sick, too. I respect his military career, but his politics... no, I must disagree. I'm afraid he would run the country too much like Bush has in these past years.

[bookworm_020]

Polls mean nothing. It's who win's on the day (or in the cort case afterwards!)

[Tchocky]

Polls mean plenty. Not exact, not completely correct, but indicative.