I think the word you"re looking for Melchiz is "greedy" American doctors....not "miserly"....completely different meaning....I guess the fact that we pay our doctors less but we pay our teachers more shows.....lol...."priceless".

And I am the Monk's wife...not the Monk...although I'm pretty sure he agrees with me.  When he gets home I'll ask....lol.

I doubt that you are aware of hyperbole as a form of mockery, or the fact that miserly is a similar, but more insulting, means of calling someone "greedy." If you honestly believe that American doctors as a whole are inspired by greed, you should abstain from this debate entirely.

Frogboy, since you have access to IPs and whatnot (I recall you commenting on the number of Germans complaining about Demigod), should we assume that many of the supporters of HR 3200 on these forums are, in fact, not American? I would not be surprised. The great irony is, of course, that foreigners become extremely agitated when Americans tell them what to do.

I don't think most people here are arguing for or against HR 3200. They are arguing about the concept of tax payer funded universal health care.

The issue, in my view, is just a lot more complex in the US than in other western countries for reasons discussed in this thread.

Well, in order to understand the appropriate way to manage American healthcare, one must understand America. I suppose that this complexity explains the arguments made by many foreign posters.

(this forum software is pure shit when dealing with several nested quotes.)

Quoting Melchiz

Quoting Aroddo, reply 340

As foreign observers we have a different perspective of the things that happen in america. And the health reform opposition clearly looks like the exploiters of the current system are doing everything they can to prevent something we take for granted.

Well, if you admit that your perspective is clouded, how can you claim to see this so-called opposition "cleary?"

Well, first of all I didn't admit that my/our perspective is clouded nor did I intend to sound that way. We, of course, think that we see the issue more clearly. There's a german saying (not sure how the english counterpart goes): "You don't see the forest because the trees are in the way."

Your struggle simply looks different from the outside and we see implications you don't. This is by no means meant to sound arrogant - it's a simple fact. I, for example, had to have pointed out to me that our school system is - even though quite efficient - basically discriminating. And before getting told that (by an american, btw.) I never wasted a though on that matter.

Quoting Melchiz

I find it amusing foreigners speak as if American healthcare is somehow lacking. ...
Our system is not perfect, but considering the talent of our physicians, our wealth of technology, and diversity of care options, I see no reason for foreigners to pity us. I would expect the opposite, really. Perhaps there is some lingering envy for American healthcare, particularly in how we often attract talented physicians from other nations.

That statement sounds to foreigners like a typical display of american arrogance - and I'm not sure anymore if you even meant it like that.

No one doubts that your medical knowhow is top notch - but your system is too focused on profit making to be considered more than average as a system. We simply don't think that private "death panels" should have the power to condemn anyone to death by denying coverage.

I got the impression that we can agree to that, at least. And I concede that you don't need a public option to improve your system. But you definetly need better laws and regulations.

That is not irony. No country likes to be approached with an "if you're not with us, you're against us", "america first" attitude. Your last president managed single-handedly to get billions of people world wide to hate him, and by extension america.

Quoting Melchiz

Well, in order to understand the appropriate way to manage American healthcare, one must understand America. I suppose that this complexity explains the arguments made by many foreign posters.

Possibly. In exchange you should consider how strange some of the american comments sound. Especially when making statements about our health care systems that simply are not true, even if cable TV says so.

Don't need Frogboy for that. Most of them are open about where they are posting from. Many, if not exactly "most", of the supporters on the forum will not be affected by it in any way. Most of those opposed will be affected by it eventually.

Anyone willing to read for a while should find this article interesting. Keep in mind the writer is a self-proclaimed Democrat, but some of the ideas expressed should have other party members ready to disown him. Only at the end when he gets to the things all Americans should be required to do does he return to what a Democrat would find acceptable.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

To be fair, most of them hated us already. Bush just reminded them why.

Certainly not a lunatic, though.

Again, my reasoning is being "overshot"; each individual has some control over the society they live in.

Not if the poorest (say, about 100+ workers) are used to generate TOO MUCH wealth that only one person can benefit from. What is a reasonable maximal limit for anyone to be able to simply live in such a context? 20,000,000$/Year salary or less? Do they really need that much money to spend?

200,000x100 is what? Enough or better off?

20,000x1000? Care to evaluate their available means.

Premiums paid to Insurance corporations is funding for universal health care already. Well, at least, that's what we've been hearing from those who ARE covered in the US.

Zyxp -

qnpoquywghbnqrtqouihvpqo;wenit;qoihvaalkndf;aohyqebrqiygtbsbnw4rtmqeroj

IIRC, a Lungs cancer patient is still enjoying a whole bunch of millions in Florida for going after the Tobacco industry. Should any car manufacturers be help responsible for clunkers (of late) that POLLUTED her lungs too?

That's health, ya know. That's even jobs in agriculture or assembly plants.

I'm seeing multiple people post various reiterations of the statistic, "2/3 of all health care costs in a person's life are spent during the last 6 months." Average life expectancy in the US is 77.9 according to the latest statistics, and medicare kicks in after living for 65 years, (among other qualifications) so we can safetly assume that a vast majority of these cases are paid by medicare.

I've also seen the argument about not paying for another person's surgery a lot, because of American individualism. However, we still pay for the surgeries of old people through medicare (also going back to the 2/3 in the last six months piece of data). Medicare is going to stay where it is since seniors are the happiest with their health care and the most active voters, so politicians don't want to lose that voting bloc. (trying to work with the reality of the political situation)

Contemplating these two facts, I would like to pose a question:

Let's take a guy named Joe Bob. He lives a relatively healthy life, with the average salary, has health insurance until he turns 65, where he signs up for medicare. At age 70 (i'm not a doctor, so these ages are fairly arbitrary) he begins to have heart troubles, escalating to multiple surgeries during his first six months of being 75. Eventually, the old age takes over, and he passes away.

So in reality, the government payed for most of his healthcare. According to the data, he spent 1/3 of his total hospital bills of his life for a total of 75 years, but in the short period of 6 months, 2/3 of his total hospital bills were payed for by the government. Why doesn't the government pay for the other 1/3 over the course of a 65 year period? (actually less than 1/3 given he had already been on medicare for 10 years before the surgeries)

I want this question to be simple and philosophical, while recognizing the current situation. I know that the numbers are not be completely accurate, but when answering the question, the numbers are food for thought.

Hah!  Maybe you aren't, I missed that whole PC craze.  Completely...

This would be the same Cuba where fever reducers aren't widely available, yes?

For what I truly wish could be the last time, life expectancy is a product of lifestyle first, health care second.  Cuba's poverty is even a plus.  They aren't actually starving, but they can't afford to eat too much.  When you slow down your metabolism, you age slower to go with it.  They walk to work because they can't afford transportation, plant their own gardens because they can't afford to shop like we do, and generally aren't fat, yet again because they can't afford to eat McDonalds every day and sit on their ass all evening.  Cuba's health care sucks donkey balls, aside from a couple high end clinics in the rich parts of the island.  Those would be the places tourists go to.  Their other facilities make the shit hole hospitals we have in rural areas look like a godsend.

First, you're wrong.  Medicare is 80/20.  People that die of cancer generally don't die of cancer after 65.  When you died at 25 from leukemia, you weren't covered by medicare.  You did however rack up x millions of dollars in hospital bills before you went.  More money than you would likely have made in your entire life had you lived to ripe old age.  Two thirds in the last six months, yes, but everyone doesn't live to be 75, and medicare doesn't pay it all.

Second, you're assuming that it's a good idea government pays for all those costs.  Medicare is what created the rapidly increasing cost, the time line is quite obvious.  Each expansion, including the one Bush made, has increased the rate at which new treatments are created, due to the increase in viability through government funding.  There would be no aids coctail without medicaid for instance.  No one with aids, aside from Magic Johnson, could afford the treatment.  It's nice that my grandfather got to beat lymphoma twice, it's not very fair though.  More money was spent on him than he and all his children combined have made their entire lives.  In return, he got 16 years he wouldn't have ten years earlier.  Medicare has created the massively expensive, but significantly better medical treatment.  It is the problem.

If we can't afford the amount we're spending, the solution is that we need to die sooner.  You do that by getting rid of medicare and medicaid, not by expanding the system to include everyone.

Excellent insight Frogboy.  I agree that Canadians embrace collectivism but I do not agree that we are, as a whole, homogeneous. The difference is that we celebrate and embrace the cultural/religious differences among us and allow people to express that. We make sure our children are educated about cultural differences. This helps to eliminate the ignorance, fear, hatred and misunderstanding that breeds prejudice. We respect the rights of individuals while at the same time, striving for what's best for all.

For example, several years ago we held a referendum here in Canada in relation to the French/English issue (a fairly hot button topic here in Canada). The ensuing vote ended in a 49%/51% split. In the US, that may have been grounds for a civil war. In Canada it was more like "Ok, the vote is done, the people have spoken, it is what it is, let's go home". I do not see this as weakness of conviction but rather respect for the democratic process whether it supports your convictions or not.

Melchiz....While I suspect it is fruitless to expect to have a productive debate with you, I will say that I understand perfectly the meaning of hyperbole and mockery.  As someone who can complete the New York Times crossword puzzle in about 1/2 hour (in pen), I suggest you look up the definition of "miserly". 

I also never said "American doctors as a whole are inspired by greed".  While I believe wealth is the motivation for many in the medical profession, I never implied that was the case for all. 

The Monk's Wife

Thank you for this. I really didn't need any evidence of your sour attitude before, but this speaks more clearly of your character than my words would ever be able to accomplish.

In the words of my husband the_Monk....."He's a dick", meaning you....I concur. 

I also do not have a "sour" attitude....I'm pretty sweet actually...and my character is, in my humble opinion, admirable.

The Monk's Wife