Forums | MacLife

In case you are wondering where I'm going with this, if the answer is yes, how does it different from medicare?

What will it change? The poor already can get coverage from medicare.

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

The poor already can get coverage from medicare.

lolwut

What's funny or questionable about it?
Expand it to cover those who can't afford private health care / pre-existing conditions, fix what is currently wrong with it. No need to mess with the health care the vast majority of Americans currently have - other than some necessary regulation of the industry (IE to prevent price gouging and severely fine them for making legitimate claims difficult).

Medicare is only for seniors.

Medicaid is for the indigent, and I MEAN the indigent. If you got any money at all, you've got to get rid of it before you'll qualify.

You yourself don't have health insurance. Amazing how Republicans are able to get people to work against their own interests.

user wrote:

Medicare is only for seniors.

Medicaid is for the indigent, and I MEAN the indigent. If you got any money at all, you've got to get rid of it before you'll qualify.

You yourself don't have health insurance. Amazing how Republicans are able to get people to work against their own interests.

That's not completely true. Look at the homeless healthcare problem. Around 75% of homeless people are uninsured with only a quarter of them being eligible for the Medicaid program. The Department of Housing and Urban Development reported just this month that the amount of homeless families across this country rose 9% from last year and by 56% in the rural/suburban areas. The not so funny thing is that healthcare costs are the leading cause for personal bankruptcy which only increases the homeless problem.

Hey res, what say America adopt the Swiss approach to health care?

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Hey res, what say America adopt the Swiss approach to health care?

I think that would be a good idea, though I would prefer it be done at the state level and not federal.

I must say I'm amazed. What do you like about that system?

Shh!

resedit wrote:

Aaron_R wrote:

user wrote:

Medicare is only for seniors.

Medicaid is for the indigent, and I MEAN the indigent. If you got any money at all, you've got to get rid of it before you'll qualify.

You yourself don't have health insurance. Amazing how Republicans are able to get people to work against their own interests.

That's not completely true. Look at the homeless healthcare problem. Around 75% of homeless people are uninsured with only a quarter of them being eligible for the Medicaid program.

Specifically why are the other 75% not eligible?

Anyone going to answer this?

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

I think that would be a good idea, though I would prefer it be done at the state level and not federal.

I must say I'm amazed. What do you like about that system?

Most insurance is private.
They regulate the hospital care costs to prevent price gouging, and provide insurance for those who genuinely can not afford it.

Something we can easily do here by requiring health insurance by law (preferably at the state level) and providing it for those who can't afford it - either by extending medicare or (in case of California) through Medical.

Easy to do, problem solved.
On to next issue.

Thing is, the insurance providers are very tightly regulated. The different plans are so tightly regulated that they're essentially the same.

Oh, and they're not allowed to make a profit.

It's not the sort of thing I'd expect you to support.

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

Aaron_R wrote:

That's not completely true. Look at the homeless healthcare problem. Around 75% of homeless people are uninsured with only a quarter of them being eligible for the Medicaid program.

Specifically why are the other 75% not eligible?

Anyone going to answer this?

I dunno, they're not over 65 maybe?

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

Anyone going to answer this?

I dunno, they're not over 65 maybe?

That's easy to fix by expanding the program and does not require a 1,000+ page bill to do so.

No, it's not easy to fix. Simply expanding it will break the bank. There has to be overall reform of the entire health care industry.

btw - the swiss companies MAY profit, they just can't profit on the BASIC plan.
So get your facts straight.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … d=92106731

I assume NPR is a source you won't dispute?

resedit wrote:

btw - the swiss companies MAY profit, they just can't profit on the BASIC plan.
So get your facts straight.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … d=92106731

I assume NPR is a source you won't dispute?

Take it easy. The Swiss approach to health care profit is exactly the same as it is in Canada. In fact the only substantive difference is the fact that coverage is provided by nonprofits in Switzerland, whereas in Canada it's the provincial governments. It's a technical difference; the big picture is the same in both countries.

The reason I'm surprised to see you support the Swiss approach to socialized medicine is because I seem to remember condemning Canada's approach to socialized medicine.

And by the way Canada's system is a bit cheaper than Switzerland's; there don't seem to be spectacular efficiencies associated with the Swiss system.

Last edited by ShnickyShnack (2009-07-31 11:36 pm)