IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

The most efficient and by far the most cost effective health care system is in place and has been since the sixties. Medicare!. Why not devise a health care system based upon it as a model. Cut out the middle man{insurance] companies and with it the profit motive.

0 Replies

Quote:

Also, we probably have a much higher rate of violent crime than the other comparatives, which contributes to deaths at an earlier age.

[/quote]

Don't most life-span analysis remove death by un-natural causes (war, murder, etc)?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The most efficient and by far the most cost effective health care system is in place and has been since the sixties. Medicare!. Why not devise a health care system based upon it as a model. Cut out the middle man{insurance] companies and with it the profit motive.

Two words:

Political Contributions

0 Replies

BTW, at least Advocate includes other issues to the pie concerning "longivity" and health issues. Some people suffer from myopia.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

au1929 wrote:
The most efficient and by far the most cost effective health care system is in place and has been since the sixties. Medicare!. Why not devise a health care system based upon it as a model. Cut out the middle man{insurance] companies and with it the profit motive.

Two words:

Political Contributions

That is the reason why a system of universal health care has not been enacted . Not a reason why it should not be.

Unfortunately the votes of our congress people are on sale to the highest bidder. Honesty and integraty is not a quality often found in the world of politics.

0 Replies

Imposter, nobody ever said it was the only factor. I would appreciate it if you would quit interpreting my posts blatantly wrong. I simply said it was fairly important factor, among many factors. I mentioned it as one example of an influence upon life span that needs to be compared from country to country. If I have time, I may try to dig up more information on it, but the following quote from the following site could be a starting point.

"Additional research has shown that people who are severely obese with a BMI greater than 45 live up to 20 years less than people who are not overweight. Some researchers have estimated that obesity causes about 300,000 deaths in the U.S. annually. In addition, obesity is fueling an epidemic of type 2 diabetes, which also reduces lifespan."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050321085233.htm

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I simply said it was fairly important factor, among many factors. I mentioned it as one example of an influence upon life span that needs to be compared from country to country.

What other factors do you think would be important?

Or wait, let me give you some examples, and then you tell me whether or not those factors should be considered as important:

- number of physicians per capita
- number nurses per capita
- number of hospital beds per capita
- access to specialized health care services
- wait times for specialized services
- access to care on nights and weekends

What do you think?

0 Replies

okie: Imposter, nobody ever said it was the only factor. I would appreciate it if you would quit interpreting my posts blatantly wrong. I simply said it was fairly important factor, among many factors.

Okay, show me where you said it was one of many factors?

0 Replies

From page 46, okie: My point in bringing up the subject of obesity was to point out that just maybe we have the best health care system in the world if you consider the population that the health care system is dealing with.

0 Replies

From page 45, okie: I saw the same article, imposter, but you need to look past the headlines and also learn that a third of Americans are overweight, and so forth and so on. Just maybe our affluence is causing us to be couch potatoes, which does not make us healthy.

0 Replies

From page 46, oki: In regard to health care, people that knowingly choose to increase their risks, I think insurance companies should be able to charge more. After all, why should I have to pay my insurance company more to cover the people that don't care about their health.

You assume all people who have health problems have a choice. That's about as dumb as it can get. Universal health care would care for everybody with health problems whether is was self-imposed or was caused by our genes or the environment. With health care, the patient can learn about better habits to improve their health, and get the proper medicine to control high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, and other multitudes of good health intervention. Without health insurance, most will continue to live in the lifestyle they have become accustomed. Which is a better choice for the majority?

0 Replies

You will have as much luck talking to this as you do C.I. Okie.

http://z.about.com/d/landscaping/1/0/z/4/rock_gardens_8.jpg

0 Replies

c.i. wrote :

Quote:

You assume all people who have health problems have a choice. That's about as dumb as it can get. Universal health care would care for everybody with health problems whether is was self-imposed or was caused by our genes or the environment. With health care, the patient can learn about better habits to improve their health, and get the proper medicine to control high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, and other multitudes of good health intervention. Without health insurance, most will continue to live in the lifestyle they have become accustomed. Which is a better choice for the majority?

and i would add that PROPER HEALTH CARE for all benefits the COUNTRY AS A WHOLE .
isn't that what UNIVERSAL health care is all about ?
if more(read : all) people have proper health care , the whole nation is a healthier nation , is it not ?
i would even argue that a healthier nation (consisting of healthier individuals) is a stronger and more resilient society .
imo it's one of those win-win situations that all citizens should be able to agree on
or is it considered valuable to the rest of the society if some of its citizens are not given proper healthcare ?
hbg

0 Replies

McGentrix, you've noticed that too?

Yes, poor imposter just cannot seem to read very well. I will try to set him straight on his post above by quoting entirely what I said in the post that he extracted the quote from.

okie wrote:

Similar to any other kind of insurance, the choices people make should be free game for insurance companies. For example, if you live in a floodplain, you will pay alot more for flood insurance. If you live a long distance from a fire station, your insurance rates are higher. If you drive a safer car, you may receive lower rates. Such as a model with airbags, etc. I think that is fair for insurance companies to do that.

In regard to health care, people that knowingly choose to increase their risks, I think insurance companies should be able to charge more. After all, why should I have to pay my insurance company more to cover the people that don't care about their health.

In contrast, I do not believe an insurance company should be able to penalize people for health risks, over which the people have no choice, or pre-existing conditions over which they have no control or had no control. In regard to having babies, a man should also be part of the equation, so no, men and women should share in the cost of having babies, and the insurance that goes with it. At least that is my first gut thought on the subject.

So, we are left with 3 possibilities, imposter is not smart enough to read accurately and understand it, or he is really too lazy to read it all, or worse yet, and I would hate to suggest it wrongly, but he simply may be choosing to lie about it.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

c.i. wrote :

Quote:
You assume all people who have health problems have a choice. That's about as dumb as it can get. Universal health care would care for everybody with health problems whether is was self-imposed or was caused by our genes or the environment. With health care, the patient can learn about better habits to improve their health, and get the proper medicine to control high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, and other multitudes of good health intervention. Without health insurance, most will continue to live in the lifestyle they have become accustomed. Which is a better choice for the majority?

and i would add that PROPER HEALTH CARE for all benefits the COUNTRY AS A WHOLE .
isn't that what UNIVERSAL health care is all about ?
if more(read : all) people have proper health care , the whole nation is a healthier nation , is it not ?
i would even argue that a healthier nation (consisting of healthier individuals) is a stronger and more resilient society .
imo it's one of those win-win situations that all citizens should be able to agree on
or is it considered valuable to the rest of the society if some of its citizens are not given proper healthcare ?
hbg

So without the government to provide you health care and tell you what is healthy, you are incapable of knowing what is healthy and living more healthy? Whether you realize it or not, that says alot about you, hamburger.

0 Replies

Pot. Kettle.

0 Replies

Yup!

0 Replies

okie wrote:

hamburger wrote:
c.i. wrote :

Quote:
You assume all people who have health problems have a choice. That's about as dumb as it can get. Universal health care would care for everybody with health problems whether is was self-imposed or was caused by our genes or the environment. With health care, the patient can learn about better habits to improve their health, and get the proper medicine to control high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, and other multitudes of good health intervention. Without health insurance, most will continue to live in the lifestyle they have become accustomed. Which is a better choice for the majority?

and i would add that PROPER HEALTH CARE for all benefits the COUNTRY AS A WHOLE .
isn't that what UNIVERSAL health care is all about ?
if more(read : all) people have proper health care , the whole nation is a healthier nation , is it not ?
i would even argue that a healthier nation (consisting of healthier individuals) is a stronger and more resilient society .
imo it's one of those win-win situations that all citizens should be able to agree on
or is it considered valuable to the rest of the society if some of its citizens are not given proper healthcare ?
hbg

So without the government to provide you health care and tell you what is healthy, you are incapable of knowing what is healthy and living more healthy? Whether you realize it or not, that says alot about you, hamburger.

It would appear that hamburger is making an argument in favour of universal health care.

That's not necessarily the same thing as state run health care.

You understand the difference, don't you?

0 Replies

imo comparing health insurance to car insurance is a no-starter .
with medical information changing almost on a constant basis , it'll be next to impossible to come up with a fair rating system .
if you are making a detailed assesment of the health of each individual , you'd be adding a considerable cost to the system ; how often would you re-assess individuals ?
most doctors have their hands full just treating their patients ; where are they going to find the time to assess every one ?
anyhow , since UNIVERSAL health insurance is already less costly to administer than SELECTIVE insurance , why add to the cost ?
isn't it better to reduce the cost - and have healthier citizens in the bargain?
or do some people find satisfaction in denying health benefits to fellow citizens ?
hbg

0 Replies

hbg, It seems that just because they have their health insurance, they don't think they have a responsibility to the rest of society to have good health, but would do everything in their power to deny it - even while our cost continues to escalate.

Ignorance at its peak.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know